From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O5zHo-0007vM-M3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:42:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37673E081B; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailfilter21.ihug.co.nz (mailfilter21.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.21]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C46CE04E7 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:41:51 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQKAFa500t2XQFk/2dsb2JhbAAmkAyMAXK7fIJkgigEjA0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,269,1270382400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="68820608" Received: from 118-93-1-100.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz (HELO linux.localnet) ([118.93.1.100]) by cust.filter3.content.vf.net.nz with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 Apr 2010 22:41:50 +1200 From: Alistair Bush Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:42:30 +1200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.32-gentoo; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <4BD32D26.5090005@gentoo.org> <20100424201404.32b5ad52@gentoo.org> <4BD415F0.2040007@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4BD415F0.2040007@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3438657.bSHUWusRm9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201004261042.36116.ali_bush@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: f870eab7-b23a-44a8-b78f-2641cb3ba992 X-Archives-Hash: 634ca8b2eead23167700bdfc0e8a62ba --nextPart3438657.bSHUWusRm9 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 04/24/2010 09:14 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300 > >=20 > > Petteri R=E4ty 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. > >>=20 > >> 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. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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?= =20 2) Where is this policy recorded, and why does devmanual.g.o seem to=20 (possibly) contradict it? [1] I'm not sure of the nature of the commits bu= t=20 were they non-general? =2D Alistair [1] "It is not usually necessary to email the gentoo-dev list before making= =20 changes to a non-general eclass which you maintain. Use common sense here." --nextPart3438657.bSHUWusRm9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkvUxVwACgkQP34/1Xus5SkrrgCfT0dZ48+gvQwr7kcvTS15geEs b7YAnR88tyqaDVbb9ygk4QuNiUKM8DL8 =xgDw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3438657.bSHUWusRm9--