-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01-03-2010 06:39, Markos Chandras wrote: > On Friday 26 February 2010 18:40:47 Alec Warner wrote: >> You mistake the intent I think. We deploy automation because humans >> fail; even when they have the best intentions. We make typos, copy >> and paste errors, accidentally leave whitespace, type commands into >> the wrong shell, hit the wrong key that kills our session, etc. Smart >> people avoid work by making a computer do parts that are easily >> automated; which is why the proposed system is so fine-grained. We >> can likely add some logic to our current toolset to remind the human >> that they may have further obligations than just typing repoman commit >> (like asking on a bug, a mailing list, irc, etc.) With a really >> simple system; we cannot easily automate when to do what because the >> criteria are so broad. I agree that a moderately complex system is >> useless for humans (I'd ignore it straight out) which is why we should >> write software to do the work for us. I am much more likely to >> respond to a message from repoman telling me I need to file a bug >> first as opposed to me looking at metadata.xml every time I commit >> something. Sure there are people who never read repoman output and >> commit utter crap to the tree; but I do not really expect 100% success >> from any system we deploy; I'd be happy with 60% honestly. >> > In my eyes, we don't need a smarter repoman to check whether we are supposed > or not to do a specific commit. What we need are rules ( stricter or not ) > which DO apply to all developers, and a team ( devrel ) which will be > responsible to do that. Repoman will not help the situation but it will add a > new level of complexity into our already complex "communication" system. > We need an active devrel team which will postpone commit access to those > developers who are repeatedly fail to behave correctly whatever that means. > > That said, i am totally again messing with metadata.xml as long as there > problem resides in a much higher level
Markos, the job of Developer Relations is not to act as a "repo police". What you're talking about is mostly a QA issue. Whenever Developers, in particular maintainers for a package, feel someone ignored or broke policy and report that to Developer Relations, than it will get into the team's radar. However, Developer Relations is not and will not grep the commits ml to find "offenders". PS - As Alec suggested, automated tools that help identify and report issues are a good idea. In the least, when someone ignores a rule repoted by repoman, you can be sure it wasn't a distraction, but a conscious decision to ignore its output. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJLi7U1AAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPJHEP/3eZp8fFoqdcgNJJVDHS6Xa3 YXKUYthkEzZZQhtfPgQdRh4pYqFwrc+d+uq1CoRLECLOuhNk0m+wu+jN7UByJGQp wSlZMFxHuvI410oHhGTkNH7Mes9BBGKF3hYRyyd5og7qCseo3S6BTvJSdvV1QbH9 l1W3inag56ZjwCMWDjr2Z/iqhiym6lPBI7ShEz13SYffOKWrbMErDqIDi/JbIb4a N7YKhTUEqsfYkVZbO42uj0wVWGR+mz0lAwJozh0jLvTtLLQc3xcr74SlsRno18k6 922JXxatbDQdsL3xDY4rxWUKlF2q/HDNLdKx4LLEIyr+oOH1V6Jaf9ygWlfhjQGQ 6KV6yQSvRcDhIGg4PLirfzXswFqxjfVc1jtc1JEHRjSFsWxAfZ4FNNk7w+XHo0Cx 5oPV5yNKCnYfOmq2BLyVQI8VALQ0dnv3OW3Hg1nGv0ILcrM6g35cvmPNqgyZXDid 5ut6u86U+JSFhq2geeCaIBqaZbOpWy8wJ7zIZ7MjMx9CzYpSHF4olAVy0JY+sQe7 NjNy1BM+gENqlFezltQGDaHwA1A/xNsaH0c8P0Zlc7QeoNQw/KQn7n5EpsWr+RR6 8c/mOQAruyA3BsWD2g+NOU64+Yo7NuGUAo94broIVBNf5wWbynC1pPFU7r3g0055 d385QdXsv8MlvosRkWck =tXdy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
