On 06/15/2016 12:37 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > You've got most things right, Rich. But a couple of comments follow. > > On 15/06/16 02:25, Rich Freeman wrote: >> 1. Developers wouldn't have access to all the ebuilds in the >> curated repositories. They would only have access to the ones they >> contribute to. > I'm not sure I completely agree with that as a hard rule. E.g. I think > that having an inter-repository QA team would be valuable. > >> 2. Exherbo at least requires peer review for all commits I >> believe. So, even if you're committing to your "own" overlay you're >> still going to need review if your overlay is a curated one. > Once again you are misrepresenting Exherbo. But since this thread is > about Gentoo, I will limit my reply to Gentoo. We should not enforce > anything on a user's repository like this. Instead, I suggest we > maintain a fork of their repository in which we perform review.
To touch on the user repo part.. can't it be as simple as adding one requirement to user repos that wish to be considered as curated? Create a "gentoo-ci" branch or something else, and the maintainer of each repo can update said branch when QA 'approves' a given commit. Then others can 'subscribe' to that branch and development remains unhindered by the QA process in a distributed format. We've settled on git, and anything that replaces git in the future will need an analog or replacement for branches, so it seems like a sound idea to me. Of course, pulling that off in infra and coordinating review is a completely different issue; one that won't be solved with software. -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
