amending the new package process
jakub at redhat.com
Fri Feb 13 12:01:48 UTC 2015
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:55:02AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/24/2015 07:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> This is not entirely true. GCC and related projects apply a pretty
> >> complex peer review process, with defined roles and privileges. (Cf. the
> >> file MAINTAINERS in GCC's sourcetree for details).
> >> Somewhat over-simplified the process condenses into "All proposed
> >> changes must be peer-reviewed by somebody who is formally in charge of a
> >> component" to be changed. Exceptions apply for "obvious changes".
> > It has been a while since I have last been following the GCC mailing lists
> > (so this may or may not have changed since then), but at least back then, a
> > maintainer for a given part of GCC was allowed to commit to that part of GCC
> > without having it reviewed by a second person, and a global maintainer was
> > allowed to commit to ANY part of GCC without having it reviewed by a second
> > person. If you were allowed to approve other people's commits, you were also
> > allowed to approve your own. There were also people only allowed to "write
> > after approval", but that was only the default/least-trusted level of commit
> > access granted, and "write after approval" developers were also not allowed
> > to review other people's submissions (unlike our system where any packager
> > can review other packager's submissions, but never their own). Has this
> > changed since?
> No. It is as you describe.
No, we don't have global maintainers for quite a few years, only global
reviewers who aren't allowed to approve their own changes. And, while we
have various maintainers that for some part of code are allowed to approve
their own changes, we have also many reviewers of particular parts of code
that can approve only changes from other people but not their own.
More information about the devel