Re: [gentoo-dev] Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits

[Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1609 bytes --]

> On 04/24/2010 09:14 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
> > 
> > Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> 17:34 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: how easy to it to prevent commits to
> >> CVS if the commit message doesn't match a certain pattern?
> >> 17:36 <@robbat2|na> go and checkout the CVSROOT and there should be an
> >> example there
> >> 17:37 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: Ok so doable then. Thanks.
> >> 
> >> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without
> >> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the diff
> >> in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent
> >> stuff too.
> > 
> > no thanks; we already have the policy to require that major changes to
> > broad impact eclasses have gone through -dev, no need to add more
> > bureaucracy.
> 
> But the policy is not tested by the quizzes and we have had cases lately
> where large diffs have been committed without gentoo-dev review. With
> peer review it's likely that the reviewer is familiar with what should
> be sent to gentoo-dev as hesitant/new people won't give their approval
> that easily.

1)  Why is it of any relevance whether or not the quizzes test this policy?  
2)  Where is this policy recorded, and why does devmanual.g.o seem to 
(possibly) contradict it? [1]  I'm not sure of the nature of the commits but 
were they non-general?

- Alistair

[1] "It is not usually necessary to email the gentoo-dev list before making 
changes to a non-general eclass which you maintain. Use common sense here."

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]