On 2011.01.28 23:03, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: [snip] > Only case where we don't want Devrel interfere with QA decision at > all > is when someone Intentionaly breaks main tree. Seriously if someone > really hit this issue i don't actually want him to apologize to > another > team and pretend like it never happened, i would prefer him long gone > in > a place far far away :) We really just want keep control over > removing > access for people that does breakage to main tree just for the > breakage > itself, aka it can't be excused in any way. > """ [snip]
Its not QAs decision, if the breakage was intentional or not. A single body, in this case, QA, cannot be both the police and the judicary. QA can and should be capable of finding wrongs, preventing further damage and causing the problem to get fixed. Thats damage limitaion. If preventing further damage involves revoking commit rights pending full investigation, thats fine by me. Determining the root cause, and determining long term prevention takes some investigation. QA may present evidence but its Devrels job to weigh the evidence and pass sentence. > Tom > -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees
pgpFLUpGEZkmr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
