CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

[Eike Hein]

On January 14, 2017 1:23:20 AM GMT+09:00, "Martin Gräßlin" <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
>Am 2017-01-13 13:21, schrieb Eike Hein:
>> Ok, here we go. My draft of a formal policy for dep changes and the
>CI:
>> 
>> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Dependency_Changes_and_CI
>> 
>> Compared to my earlier email, this draft contains some hard deadlines
>> and an attempt to specify failure modes if the deadlines are not met.
>> 
>> Please chime in with suggestions for how the text needs to be refined
>> and expanded to meet your and our needs. Updated versions of specific
>> paragraphs are the preferred format for doing so: The thread so far
>> has shown that free-form conversation is prone to mudslinging, so
>> let's try to keep to the lingo fo a formal, dry document.
>
>Thanks for stepping up to write this!
>
>A few notes from my side:
>
>* "Subscribing the sysadmin team to these code reviews is mandatory." -
>
>How? What are the team names one has to add as reviewers?
>
>* This drastically changes the way KDE works. It requires mandatory
>code 
>review and gives kind of veto power to sysadmins. It's something the 
>larger KDE community might need to discuss as it removes one of the
>core 
>principles of KDE that anybody can commit to anything and code review
>is 
>only optional.
>
>* Related to this: a month blocking on formal process is too long. If a
>
>maintainer doesn't respond in two weeks but another team member
>accepted 
>the patch, it should also go in.
>
>* I would like to see a link to where developers can check whether a 
>dependency is available. Reasoning: I want to check whether it's a 
>no-brainer to not have to add sysadmins if it's already available. E.g.
>
>if I add a new dep in KWin, which is already used by Krita I wouldn't 
>know that and ask sysadmins. That would be a waste of sysadmin's time.
>
>* I would like to add another exception: last minute dependency
>requests 
>prior to a feature freeze should be allowed under certain conditions 
>even if sysadmins had not two weeks to respond. Reasoning: shit happens
>
>;-)
>
>Cheers
>Martin

Crappy mobile mail client, apologies for bad (rather no) quoting.

First up: No objections to swapping (a) and (c).

ade's "do we really have that much bureaucracy" and highlighting this codifies mandatory code review also resonate with me. I might make an alternate draft that takes the foot of the pedal a bit, depending on how the discussion evolves.

How to subscribe sysadmin: Indeed something we still need to figure out.

"Team member" instead of "maintainer": Agreed. We've done a bad job of tracking maintainers anyway, and that's partially because we have somewhat intentionally-weak roles, to encourage people to step up and exercise common ownership. We probably don't need make maintainers more special in this doc and can rely on them being consulted naturally as per usual. This also unburdens the bureaucracy slightly already.

Dep checking: Sysadmin will have to chime in there.

Special exceptions: I can try to come up with something.

I'm off to bed in this timezone. I'll see if I can revise during the weekend, otherwise Monday.


Cheers and thanks for good feedback so far,
Eike