On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 08:31 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018, at 5:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > In practice it tends to boil down to "me, nirik, and puiterwijk". > > Meanwhile, there are probably hundreds of people on this -devel > list who are capable of debugging and fixing things - some very > experienced engineers, yet some of them are here busily debating > minor things about spec files. > > It doesn't make any sense at all to have hundreds (thousands?) > of people whose sole power is to increment the versions of > packages they own, and a tiny subset of people who are capable > of e.g. reverting changes. > > First step: Close down the #fedora-releng channel and discuss > problems in #fedora-devel. Releasing is not a distinct problem > from development, and people should have experience in *both* > roles. I don't really care either way about this. The names are just names. What matters is that the work gets done. (In practice, most of the folks who actually *work* on this stuff are in #fedora-releng...and #fedora-devel...and #fedora-qa...and #fedora-admin..and a bunch of other channels, and we frequently discuss the same issues in three of them at once...we've been doing devops since the stone age, we're so cool we don't even know it. :>) > Two next steps: > > - Empower anyone to submit a pull request that can *revert* changes > (e.g. the push steved just did to libevent) - not necessarily to > merge it, but merging the PR should actually revert (e.g. it should > also fix koji's state) > - Generate a process to pick e.g. at least one person from each > edition WG, plus perhaps more from various subsystems like Anaconda to be > "on point" each day/week - and empower them to merge those PRs. I think this in practice would lead to chaos. There are often at least two ways any given issue along these lines could be fixed (e.g. revert/untag the 'bad' build, *or* rebuild everything against it). If we just have a whole bunch of people deciding what to do on their own initiative, half of them will likely try and do one, and half will do the other. I don't think we want to run our distribution on the Twitch Plays principle. It's better if we actually agree on a strategy before implementing it, which is what we currently do in practice. > Another step: > > - Create a process to "close the tree", like Mozilla does for Firefox. I have no idea what this means. Could you explain? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
