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

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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 523 bytes --]

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.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

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

[Arun Raghavan]

On 24 April 2010 23:10, 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.

Were there recent breakages to make this necessary?

Cheers,
-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

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

[Alexis Ballier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 948 bytes --]

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.

Also, what will be the value of my opinion on changes on
toolchain.eclass since I know nothing about it?
Finally, find me someone able to review texlive-*.eclass changes.


Alexis.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1161 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.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

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

[Alistair Bush]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2012 bytes --]

On 04/26/2010 01:42 AM, Alistair Bush wrote:
>> 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?  

I doubt recruits read all of our documentation while answering the
quizzes. This would just enforce behavior.

> 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?
> 

http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html

"Before updating eutils  or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to
email the gentoo-dev list."

> 
> [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."

Yeah it's not spelled that clearly there.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

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

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 25-04-2010 13:10, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/26/2010 01:42 AM, Alistair Bush wrote:
>>> 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.

>> 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?
>>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html
> 
> "Before updating eutils  or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to
> email the gentoo-dev list."

The important bit there is "widely used eclass". I agree with having
peer review, but as others argued I don't agree with the recent trend to
make it increasingly harder to commit stuff to the tree.
To expand on the above, by "widely used eclass" I interpret eutils,
autotools, base and similar eclasses because even though some eclasses
like the kde4 eclasses are used by many ebuilds, it's mostly a team's
eclass and not a general eclass shared by everyone.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=GLm6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

[Steev Klimaszewski]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> wrote:
<snip>

Use common sense here.


^^ Seems pretty clear to me.

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

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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.

I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
through cvs?  No thanks.  I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
spelling mistake. :P


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 704 bytes --]

On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
> through cvs?  No thanks.  I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
> spelling mistake. :P
> 
> 

How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review
system should reduce having them in the first place.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

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

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:

> > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
> > through cvs?  No thanks.  I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
> > spelling mistake. :P
> 
> How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review
> system should reduce having them in the first place.

People make mistakes.  Anyways my point is that requiring a peer review for
trivial changes is just unneeded bureaucracy.  Even for non-trivial changes,
it doesn't make sense to force someone who knows their eclass inside out and
knows what they're doing to get a review from someone else who may not have a
clue.  I'm not saying that peer-review shouldn't be done; it's a very good
idea, especially if you're new, or unsure of your changes, or you have a team
consisting of more than one person.  In fact I would support a policy that
said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing.  But enforcing it through
cvs is never going to fly.  Just use common sense.

If we were having ongoing issues with people breaking eclasses then I could
see where you're coming from.  But as it is, it's a non-problem.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
>
>> > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
>> > through cvs?  No thanks.  I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
>> > spelling mistake. :P
>>
>> How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review
>> system should reduce having them in the first place.
>
> People make mistakes.  Anyways my point is that requiring a peer review for
> trivial changes is just unneeded bureaucracy.  Even for non-trivial changes,
> it doesn't make sense to force someone who knows their eclass inside out and
> knows what they're doing to get a review from someone else who may not have a
> clue.  I'm not saying that peer-review shouldn't be done; it's a very good
> idea, especially if you're new, or unsure of your changes, or you have a team
> consisting of more than one person.  In fact I would support a policy that
> said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing.  But enforcing it through
> cvs is never going to fly.  Just use common sense.

Sure it will; you just need to create the tools with flexibility in
mind.  For instance:

1) Require peer review on all eclasses
2) Do not require peer review for changes less than N lines
3) enable a commiter to over-ride the review with some kind of option
(--force or similar)
4) enable an eclass-owner to opt-out of the review process entirely
with some kind of flag.

I am not aware of how robust the pre-commit hooks in cvs are so I
cannot comment on how easy these things are to implement.

-A

>
> If we were having ongoing issues with people breaking eclasses then I could
> see where you're coming from.  But as it is, it's a non-problem.
>
>
> --
> fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
> gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
> wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
>

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

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1827 bytes --]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:01:17 -0700
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing.  But enforcing it through
> > cvs is never going to fly.  Just use common sense.
> 
> Sure it will; you just need to create the tools with flexibility in
> mind.  For instance:
> 
> 1) Require peer review on all eclasses
> 2) Do not require peer review for changes less than N lines
> 3) enable a commiter to over-ride the review with some kind of option
> (--force or similar)
> 4) enable an eclass-owner to opt-out of the review process entirely
> with some kind of flag.
> 
> I am not aware of how robust the pre-commit hooks in cvs are so I
> cannot comment on how easy these things are to implement.

Well, I didn't mean technically. ;)  But we could achieve the same general
effect of the above without installing padlocks on cvs.  Just let projects or
teams establish their own review policies like they already do. For example,
if you commit changes to toolchain.eclass without consulting Mike, you'll
soon find an email in your inbox.  If you mess with wxwidgets.eclass without
running it by me you'll find your commit reverted. On the other hand,
anyone in the font, X, or tex herds can modify font.eclass.  Let people
establish rules suited to their project's workflow and enforce them as they
see fit.

Again, if there were some evidence this isn't working then it should be
presented.  Otherwise I don't see any reason to change the status quo.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Richard Freeman]

On 04/25/2010 07:36 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> People make mistakes.

Agreed - at work I've often found a quality mindset that is 100% focused 
on preventing mistakes, and I've found that these kinds of systems are 
almost equally as focused on preventing them from being fixed (three 
minutes to fix a bug, three weeks to document and release the fix - then 
we wonder why the system has hundreds of trivial open bugs with no ROI 
for fixing them).

A good quality system isn't just about preventing mistakes - it needs to 
be about fixing them too.  The system that prevents typos from getting 
into the tree shouldn't get in the way of those typos being fixed. 
There needs to be a balance.

Scripts running on repository servers don't have a sense of balance, so 
they aren't the answer.  Nor is cutting off hands any time a dev messes 
up unless it becomes a pattern or there is malicious intent.

However, a systematic review process is probably a good thing most of 
the time, and published policies supporting this are a good thing.

Rich

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

[Paul Varner]

On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 13:11 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
> > Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
> > through cvs?  No thanks.  I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
> > spelling mistake. :P
> > 
> > 
> 
> How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review
> system should reduce having them in the first place.

Because the reviewer missed it.  gentoolkit-0.3.0 is currently being
developed by the user community and I review everything before I commit
to the gentoolkit repository.  It is amazing, how much still gets
through the review process (including spelling errors).  While reviews
will catch a lot of stuff, they won't catch everything.

Finally, my opinion is in line with Ryan's.  Strongly encourage it, but
do not force it through cvs.

Regards,
Paul

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

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]

On 2010.04.24 18:40, Petteri Räty 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 
> 
In industry, the practice is called peer review. Its generally thought 
to be a GoodThing as its part of the process of trapping errors as 
early as possible in the process, where they have lowest cost.

We cannot easily attribute cost in terms of money, so think about it in 
developer and user hours wasted as errors 'escape'.

Industry also recognises the need that any process needs to be tailored 
to the circumstance so the peer review process is not enforced. Project 
groups are permitted to assess the risk of screwing up against the cost 
of a fix. (That's overly simplistic).

In short, following industry best practice, the peer review process 
should be strongly encouraged but we should stop short of using tools 
to enforce it.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 24/04/2010 19:40, Petteri Räty a écrit :
> 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.

More bureaucracy and policies when we arguably have enough (or even too
much...?) My vote is a clear and resounding *no*.

If someone f*cks up, revert the commit if the issue isn't fixed quickly.

If that someone f*cks up again, call devrel on his ass.

If anything, we should be working on versionned eclasses rather than VCS
hooks.

My 2 euro cents.

Cheers,

Rémi