<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">18.07.2019 14:20, Matthias Runge пишет:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bf74db11-55b5-4f57-63bc-3aa1447ef7a8@matthias-runge.de">Pavel,
yes and no. The reason why we have this discussion here is, that <br>
previous(*) most active developers are now busy with other stuff.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>They found time to implement very strict checks to stop
development, <span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">and went into the sunset.</span></span></p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">Excellent, isn't it?<br>
</span></span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bf74db11-55b5-4f57-63bc-3aa1447ef7a8@matthias-runge.de">
<br>
You wouldn't see the noise here, if there wasn't any interest or
if there weren't companies interested both using and also having
people contribute to collectd. It is not the question if someone
contribute, but the question: how do we organize that. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>You have permissions to do this on existing Github project, or
you plan to do FORK?</p>
<p>As we have no any feedback from Owner, I don't think you have
options to implement your interests or do any even minor changes
in project policies.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bf74db11-55b5-4f57-63bc-3aa1447ef7a8@matthias-runge.de">
The code-owners proposal octo proposed last year, and which we
tried, is part of it. We were facing a decreasing number of people
doing code reviews. Part of the issue is, that only a few people
are really familiar with certain code, which makes
"code-ownership" more appealing, since that also defines subject
matter experts for plugins. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>While project requires to increase number of people, doing code
reviews, project implements _restrictions_ what nobody _except_
some people (called "code owners") could take such responsibility
- i.e. _decreases_ number of people, doing code reviews.<br>
Declaration does not match implementation.<br>
</p>
<p>As you can see, as result, that proposal breaks all what it could
to break.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bf74db11-55b5-4f57-63bc-3aa1447ef7a8@matthias-runge.de">
The implementation should be fine tuned in such a way, that
"trusted contributors" could also push the merge button for code
involving these certain plugins, which were owned by code-owners.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Did you ever looking into CODEOWNERS file? <br>
"could also push the merge button for code involving these certain
plugins, which were owned by code-owners" task can be easily
solved by appending @trusted-contributors into each line. <br>
<br>
But that was not done intentionally, I think.<br>
</p>
<p>N.B. - Even implemented, this does not solve the problem when
"@trusted-contributors" unable to merge own code, i.e. becomes
"@untrusted-contributors".<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bf74db11-55b5-4f57-63bc-3aa1447ef7a8@matthias-runge.de">
iirc, there is this workaround to force-merge the code via command
line, <br>
but that would also circumvent CI checks, but I agree, this is
different from pushing a merge button. <br>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">There is no such possibility. After "project
policy changed", command-line
merges/updates/pushes/force-pushes/etc also became not
permitted for @trusted-contributors.</span></span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bf74db11-55b5-4f57-63bc-3aa1447ef7a8@matthias-runge.de">
<br>
Matthias <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(*) whatever previous means here, that can be months, years,... <br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>