[csw-maintainers] introducing csw-upload-pkg

[Philip Brown]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Wed May 04 20:43:53 -0400 2011:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> >...
>> > Objections to this type of automation in the past have focused on the
>> > benefits of the human inspection that we have currently.  Nobody is
>> > disputing that having other eyes on a package is a good thing.  We
>> > hope that people will continue poking at the packages in unstable and
>> > filing bug reports.
>>
>> "hoping", never leads to good quality process.
>
> Feel free to file bugs on packages pushed to future/unstable.  This
> change will _not_ restrict the ability for humans to QA packages.  It
> just changes the handling of the QA process.
>

It seems that you missed.. or ignored... my point.
but I'll save further conversation about that, to voting time.


>> Does this translate to,, "maciej will put in any changes as soon as he
>> feels like it. They will be backed out, only if someone complains, AND
>> the board agrees to put up a vote on the issue"?
>
> Not at all.
>
>> I would suggest that this is poor quality practice, and that ALL
>> chpanges must be reviewed and approved by more than just the person
>> coding the change.  (given that, as I point out above, the code
>> becomes effectively interchangable with "policy")
>
> I think that's fair.  We already have patches flying by on devel@, we
> could move to a SoB (signed off by), AB (Acked by) model like git
> where at least two people must ok each change before it's approved.
>

And what if "at least two people" like the change, but other people do not?
Since, I repeat, this stuff becomes de-facto policy --  what
(political/policy) mechanisms are you going to put in place to
disallow "two people" to determine policy between themselves?

There will need to be some kind of auto-triggered dispute policy on
this. Otherwise,
two board members who collude, can do whatever they feel like to the
code, and block votes on issues that they personally are against.