Mailing List Archive

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.

Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
stuck around but didn't do much?

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this
is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree. Perhaps
the "arch tester" job could simply be made as a probationary period for
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no? This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you
for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when
you graduate if you were/are good enough.

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:39 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:

> ATs should basically be treated as staff. This includes the following changes
> to the current situation:
>
> - Get a @gentoo.org email address

Personally think this might only be fair.

> - Get read-only access to the gentoo-x86 repository
>

Can understand the reasoning for this ... we have acl's, etc to make
this possible?

> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations
> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.
>

Not too familiar on this, so i guess its going to depend on how thorough
the planned (new?) AT tests are.

> Also, the idea of an arch tester as a trustful user who is able to test
> critical changes (such as hard masked software branches), should be expanded
> to every herd. These 'ATs' wouldn't be called arch testers as the 'arch' is
> irritating, instead, herd tester (HT) could be used.
>
> As arch testers (and herd testers) become official staff, they should be
> handled by DevRel.
>
>
> Backwards Compatibility
> =======================
>
> All current arch testers should be migrated to staff.
>
>
> Copyright
> =========
>
> This document has been placed in the public domain.
>
--
Martin Schlemmer

Simon Stelling wrote:
> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations
> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.

Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It
reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
> anyway, no? This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you
> for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when
> you graduate if you were/are good enough.

That's what the amd64 herd does for quite some time anyway, but apparently there
are people who don't want to become developers with commit access, so that
doesn't mean we'll loose all ATs ;)

--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
>
>> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
>> an AT
>> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
>> AT for
>> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
>> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled
>> situations
>> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.
>
>
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

Well, depending how you want spin it, I either did or didn't mean that.
I'm just saying that if we're going to basically give them everything
that a "developer" gets sans commit access to the tree (which not even
all official developers have by the way), why not take the extra step
with them? I can tell you, for example, that if we encountered any
folks good enough to be a mips AT, we'd probably just skip that whole
business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
>> an AT
>> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
>> AT for
>> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
>> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled
>> situations
>> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.
>
>
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

Err, it is 'should' as in 'is recommended', not 'have to'. It really doesn't
make sense for *every* herd, and should be handled on a per-herd basis anyway.

--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:13 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's?
> It
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while
now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of
moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches
him about becoming a dev.

--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
hparker@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I guess what I'm *really* asking is
> whether this GLEP is necessary?

There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the
ATs recognized as an official part of the team. As I said in my other
post, we have several ATs that don't want to become devs, time
constraints, etc, keep them from making that commitment.

--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
hparker@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Homer Parker wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
>>I guess what I'm *really* asking is
>>whether this GLEP is necessary?
>
>
> There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
> worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the
> ATs recognized as an official part of the team. As I said in my other
> post, we have several ATs that don't want to become devs, time
> constraints, etc, keep them from making that commitment.

If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges
than some devs get even?

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff.
Reminds me of the forums glep - and as there, people working for
Gentoo should become part of the team.

cheers,
Wernfried

--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is
> whether this GLEP is necessary?

As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest
stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February, the
youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.

--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Monday 12 September 2005 22:45, Homer Parker wrote:
>         That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a
> while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of
> moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him
> about becoming a dev.
That excluding my strange case eh? :P

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?
>

Valid point ... maybe a probation period before the provisions of this
glep kicks in if the numbers are acceptable?


--
Martin Schlemmer

On Mon, 2005-12-09 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?

Here is the list of AT's, current and past. Those marked active are
really active. And most of them joined in the last 2-3 months.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1&chap=1

Btw, do we want to be voters in the council elections? I'm not sure they
should be given a more official status. But giving easier access to
developership if they have done a good job as ATs should definitely be
considered.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer
x86 Security Liaison


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?

This page has a list of all of the amd64 ATs, and current status:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1&chap=1

Most are fairly active. Of the active ATs, I'd say 60-70%. or more, are
active daily.

--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
hparker@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges
> than some devs get even?

What would that be?

--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
hparker@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
> As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
> rest
> stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
> the
> youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.

And ppc has 3-4.

--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
hparker@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Homer Parker wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
>>As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
>>rest
>>stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
>>the
>>youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
>
>
> And ppc has 3-4.
>

We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a dev.

-Joe
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:46 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a
> dev.

W00t! Time to do some more recruiting, eh? ;)

--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
hparker@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Chris White wrote:
> Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
> [Summary] thread.
>
> There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
> some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
> even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother.

Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is
supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP
goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the
arch testers. Maybe it's just me though.

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Simon Stelling wrote:
> This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done.
> I'm curious what you think of it.

I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.

Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from reading
the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent taken any
quizzes)? How do they get their keywording work into the tree?

Thanks,
Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
> > Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
> > [Summary] thread.
> >
> > There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
> > some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
> > even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother.
>
> Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
> at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is
> supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP
> goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the
> arch testers. Maybe it's just me though.
>

Maybe the email address is not such an issue, but it does seem fair to
people taking time and commitment as a 'kind' of reward .. after of
course the probation period. Sort of off the topic, but wanted to
clarify.

Why I did though say that read-only access to CVS do make sense for AT
testers, is that while they will not be actually fixing bugs (OK, so
they can make patches, etc), they will though need to test stuff, and
especially if its an important or urgent fix, not needing to wait for
the rsync mirrors will be a plus for them.


--
Martin Schlemmer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
>
>> Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a
>> nice tidy [Summary] thread.
>>
>> There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges
>> than some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly
>> access, and even so, the whole point of this thing is to make
>> development smoother.
>
>
> Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
> at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is
> supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP
> goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the
> arch testers. Maybe it's just me though.
>
> -Steve

For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned
developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit
access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask
for it and take any requisite quizzes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=Q3PZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list