CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

[Eike Hein]

On 01/17/2017 11:46 PM, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> But CI has a really important function: it shows us the health of the sources 
> for everything; and that's something the release team needs, and the whole 
> community can be interested in. So "opting out" of CI deprives us of a good 
> view of the state of our software products.

Agreed. But under the proposed document, you can essentially only
opt out by behaving so badly that sysadmin sees no choice but to
kick you out, and it labels that as "rude". I think it also
communicates why we care about CI (e.g. as regression catcher).

This thread has slowed down now - there's been no strong objections
raised to the current version of the doc. If everyone is happy with
it, I propose we start linking it from the /Policies/ main page by
start of February and try to live with it.

As for the current situation with xkbcommon, it happened before
we sat down to write this, and I'd say we don't try to shoehorn
it into the framework after the fact. AIUI it sysadmin/packagers
are working to procure the needed dependency, so we'll let them
do so ...


Cheers,
Eike