[Gluster-Maintainers] Lock down period merge process

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:18 PM Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com>
wrote:

> On 09/27/2018 10:05 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
> >         Now does this mean we block commit rights for component Y till
> >         we have the root cause?
> >
> >
> >     It was a way of making it someone's priority. If you have another
> >     way to make it someone's priority that is better than this, please
> >     suggest and we can have a discussion around it and agree on it :-).
> >
> >
> > This is what I can think of:
> >
> > 1. Component peers/maintainers take a first triage of the test failure.
> > Do the initial debugging and (a) point to the component which needs
> > further debugging or (b) seek for help at gluster-devel ML for
> > additional insight for identifying the problem and narrowing down to a
> > component.
> > 2. If it’s (1 a) then we already know the component and the owner. If
> > it’s (2 b) at this juncture, it’s all maintainers responsibility to
> > ensure the email is well understood and based on the available details
> > the ownership is picked up by respective maintainers. It might be also
> > needed that multiple maintainers might have to be involved and this is
> > why I focus on this as a group effort than individual one.
>
> In my thinking, acting as a group here is better than making it a
> sub-groups/individuals responsibility. Which has been put forth by Atin
> (IMO) well. Thus, keep the merge rights out for all (of course some
> still need to have it), and get the situation addressed is better.
>

In my experience, it has been rather difficult for developers without
domain expertise to solve the problem (at least on the components I am
maintaining), so the reality is that not everyone may be able to solve the
issues on all the components where the problem is observed. May be you mean
we need more participation  when you say we need to act as a group, so with
that assumption one way to make that happen is to change the workflow
around 'recheck centos'. In my thinking following the tools shouldn't lead
to less participation on gluster-devel where developers can just do
recheck-centos until the test passes and be done. So maybe tooling should
encourage participation. Maybe something like 'recheck centos
<link-to-mail-where-they-reported-it-on-gluster-devel>' This is just an
idea, thoughts are welcome.


> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>


-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20181003/18e9f633/attachment.html>