jer has been adding new QA violations for quite some time, and ignoring all (or almost all) the resulting CI mail. Some other developers have been fixing them after him but I don't think this is fair. I know I'm not the only person complaining about his behavior. Usually such complaints are met with arguments that he's still doing 'a lot' and it'd be a loss. However, I think we need to start considering whether the work he's doing really outweighs the work he imposes on others (via having to fix his issues or otherwise causing problems). At this very moment, 10 issues are attributed to jer: app-text/jo 7d38864a218e jer@gentoo.org app-text/wscr 7e8a13e89a33 jer@gentoo.org net-analyzer/argus fd4bed892c78 jer@gentoo.org net-analyzer/fail2ban 240bcf47695d jer@gentoo.org net-analyzer/ntopng 10f1982d2767 jer@gentoo.org net-analyzer/snort 00751515b5fa jer@gentoo.org net-analyzer/tcpdump d519a73f43b4 jer@gentoo.org net-analyzer/vnstat 767e1f1b7933 jer@gentoo.org net-analyzer/wireshark 129e4b86dfa7 jer@gentoo.org net-misc/apt-cacher-ng 59272cf931b7 jer@gentoo.org net-misc/youtube-dl 34a7529338bb jer@gentoo.org I propose to issue an official request to fix all the outstanding issues within 2 weeks, and start responding to CI mail.
@jer, why do you ignore these CI violations?
After a 2 week timeout with no response, I ask the QA team to vote on the following resolution: jer has 2 weeks to fix the QA violations raised by the CI. This includes porting packages he has touched to GLEP 81. If jer does not fix these violations within 2 weeks, we will issue a QA ban for 2 weeks after that. QA Team: please vote.
After internal discussion, please vote on the following alternative resolution: > jer has 1 week to fix the QA violations raised by the CI. This includes > porting packages he has touched to GLEP 81. If jer does not fix these > violations within 1 week, we will issue a QA ban for 4 weeks after that.
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #3) > After internal discussion, please vote on the following alternative > resolution: > > > jer has 1 week to fix the QA violations raised by the CI. This includes > > porting packages he has touched to GLEP 81. If jer does not fix these > > violations within 1 week, we will issue a QA ban for 4 weeks after that. yes to "alternative resolution"
(In reply to David Seifert from comment #2) > After a 2 week timeout with no response, I ask the QA team to vote on the > following resolution: > > jer has 2 weeks to fix the QA violations raised by the CI. This includes > porting packages he has touched to GLEP 81. If jer does not fix these > violations within 2 weeks, we will issue a QA ban for 2 weeks after that. > > QA Team: please vote. I vote yes.
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #3) > After internal discussion, please vote on the following alternative > resolution: > > > jer has 1 week to fix the QA violations raised by the CI. This includes > > porting packages he has touched to GLEP 81. If jer does not fix these > > violations within 1 week, we will issue a QA ban for 4 weeks after that. And I vote no on this. A four weeks ban for these minor violations is way too much, IMHO. (In fact, I had to squint hard to even spot some of them.)
(In reply to David Seifert from comment #2) > After a 2 week timeout with no response, I ask the QA team to vote on the > following resolution: > > jer has 2 weeks to fix the QA violations raised by the CI. This includes > porting packages he has touched to GLEP 81. If jer does not fix these > violations within 2 weeks, we will issue a QA ban for 2 weeks after that. > > QA Team: please vote. Voting yes to "alternative resolution"
Yes to 'alternative resolution'.
Ok so we have - 5 for 1 week fixing grace period, with a 4 week ban otherwise - 1 for 2 week fixing grace period, with a 2 week ban otherwise Jer: Please fix the issues reported by the CI report. This includes porting all packages you have touched to GLEP 81. I also ask you to refrain from making passive-aggressive commit messages (such as the one in https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=7d32f5c45d63ea43b2f7f13b9a346846be762063). The exceptional ban period of 4 weeks is for repeatedly ignoring QA and for the multitude of QA warnings we had to issue in the past.
(In reply to David Seifert from comment #11) > Ok so we have > > - 5 for 1 week fixing grace period, with a 4 week ban otherwise > - 1 for 2 week fixing grace period, with a 2 week ban otherwise > > Jer: Please fix the issues reported by the CI report. This includes porting > all packages you have touched to GLEP 81. I also ask you to refrain from > making passive-aggressive commit messages (such as the one in > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/ > ?id=7d32f5c45d63ea43b2f7f13b9a346846be762063). The exceptional ban period of > 4 weeks is for repeatedly ignoring QA and for the multitude of QA warnings > we had to issue in the past. I see absolutely no actions on fixing any QA issue raised by the report, yet committing to packages normally. @Infra I request that the 4 week commit ban be put in place.
The temporarily ban has been put into place, as decided by the QA team.
As was pointed out subsequently, QA can only do 2 week bans, so this ban will be lifted after 2 weeks.
Oh hi, I just discovered e-mails related to this bug report buried away in an IMAP subfolder. Since I receive many thousands of bugzilla e-mails on a weekly basis, apparently I need some strong procmail fu.
(In reply to David Seifert from comment #1) > @jer, why do you ignore these CI violations? I guess they are only "repeated policy violations" (as the Summary suggests) if 1) they are pointed out to you and 2) you (maliciously?) fail to fix them or 3) you engage in some kind of commit war. I think none of those happened. Since the Description refers to "CI mail", I must assume that some specific e-mails were sent out to me, yet I cannot seem to find them. This "CI mail" presumably is something other than repoman output? I ask since there does not seem to be a CI commit hook in place which would trigger after repoman, so I guess it's run periodically or indeed triggered by each commit. I can go dig through the fetch logs to see if any "CI mail" got binned. If mail did get sent and read, then repeating a previous violation knowingly should be construed as having a malicious intent. If mail was indeed sent but got overlooked, then they may have been violations but would not individually constitute "repeated violations".
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0) > jer has been adding new QA violations [...] > At this very moment, 10 issues are attributed to jer: > > app-text/jo 7d38864a218e jer@gentoo.org > app-text/wscr 7e8a13e89a33 jer@gentoo.org > net-analyzer/argus fd4bed892c78 jer@gentoo.org > net-analyzer/fail2ban 240bcf47695d jer@gentoo.org > net-analyzer/ntopng 10f1982d2767 jer@gentoo.org > net-analyzer/snort 00751515b5fa jer@gentoo.org > net-analyzer/tcpdump d519a73f43b4 jer@gentoo.org > net-analyzer/vnstat 767e1f1b7933 jer@gentoo.org > net-analyzer/wireshark 129e4b86dfa7 jer@gentoo.org > net-misc/apt-cacher-ng 59272cf931b7 jer@gentoo.org > net-misc/youtube-dl 34a7529338bb jer@gentoo.org Attributed by whom and in what way?
*** Bug 710280 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 681310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 670278 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #17) > (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0) > > jer has been adding new QA violations > > [...] > > > At this very moment, 10 issues are attributed to jer: > > > > app-text/jo 7d38864a218e jer@gentoo.org > > app-text/wscr 7e8a13e89a33 jer@gentoo.org > > net-analyzer/argus fd4bed892c78 jer@gentoo.org > > net-analyzer/fail2ban 240bcf47695d jer@gentoo.org > > net-analyzer/ntopng 10f1982d2767 jer@gentoo.org > > net-analyzer/snort 00751515b5fa jer@gentoo.org > > net-analyzer/tcpdump d519a73f43b4 jer@gentoo.org > > net-analyzer/vnstat 767e1f1b7933 jer@gentoo.org > > net-analyzer/wireshark 129e4b86dfa7 jer@gentoo.org > > net-misc/apt-cacher-ng 59272cf931b7 jer@gentoo.org > > net-misc/youtube-dl 34a7529338bb jer@gentoo.org > > Attributed by whom and in what way? https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/ The tool that generates these reports is dev-util/pkgcheck. pkgcheck scan seems superior to repoman scan to me in every way, FWIW. Conveniently, you can get CI output filtered per-maintainer. E.g., https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html;maintainer=jer The CI emails from <repomirrorci@gentoo.org> and for warnings the subject is "WARNING: repository still has warnings!"
