[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Non-Dev Contributors and the Tree

[Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

Kent Fredric wrote:
>> Comments?
>> ~mcummings
>>
> As a non-dev with not a lot of free time, I applaud this suggestion.
> However, my core fear is the potential for it becoming subject to
> abuse, and people insisting on repeatedly uploading patches that are
> not actually wanted / necessary for the project, despite the package
> maintainer saying 'dude , stop'
>
Well presumably if the maintainer has said it in bugzilla/ whichever
tracking mechanism you use, then it's on record. If it's transparent, it's
hard for people to argue about it other than on the merits. And users and
devs share a common interest in getting the software working optimally.

> Basically, if a non-maintainer wants maintenance rights, how do they
> go about attaining them? ,  an automated service, or some vetting
> process?
>
Dunno what the procedure might end up becoming, but my understanding is
commit right to the sunrise overlay, from where a dev has to commit it to
the main tree. It seems like a logical extension of sunrise, and i am sure
there are stats on who has submitted what to sunrise in the past. So there
is a baseline for whom to invite to become <insertNameOfNewPost>s.

> How do we go about handling the problem with the predicted increase in
> collisions?
>
I guess it depends on what the predicted increase would be. Maybe one of the
infra bods can enlighten us? (I'm guessing you'd take the writes of the
users automatically selected and see how many collisions there would have
been with the ebuilds they contributed to. A patch that got accepted
wouldn't count, of course, if it were possible to track same,)

> Is CVS fast enough / flexible enough for such a massive change in users?
> 
> (forgive me if I've made a misunderstanding, but im a SVN man, not a
> CVS'er )
>
Well aiui CVS is a lot less resource-intensive than SVN and additionally the
proposal was to utilise existing infra slightly differently. It doesn't
sound like more workload for the servers involved.

TBH it sounds more like the kernel model than anything; each individual is
responsible for the commits they make with their signature. If they have
come from elsewhere is irrelevant (apart from a legal viewpoint.) Code
responsibility lies with one, when one presses send.

kk or <Enter>


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list