Closed Bug 298719 Opened 20 years ago Closed 20 years ago

give Mark Mentovai CVS commit privs

Categories

(mozilla.org :: Repository Account Requests, task)

Product:
mozilla.org
Component:
Repository Account Requests
Platform:
PowerPC
macOS
Type:
task
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: jaas, Assigned: justdave)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Public key
1.11 KB, text/plain
Details 
Mark Mentovai should have CVS commit privs. He has done an excellent job with
the Mac build system lately. He is probably more aware of what is going on with
this component than anyone else at this point. People who can vouch for him:

1. Josh Aas
2. Simon Fraser
3. Chase
4. Mike Pinkerton
As an official vouching comment, I can say that I've seen lots of Mark's work
and its awesome. Bugs that are good examples of his ability to diagnose and
solve problems: 298406, 294244, 298543, 296900, 298088, 297688, 297619, 297227,
292530

Mark: please upload your id_dsa.pub file as a text/plain attachment.

What email address would you like to use on the account?

Check out http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/getting-cvs-write-access.html
In particular you need to fill out the form and send it in.
Need to get come SRs to post in the bug - this is outlined in the link Dave
posted in Comment 2.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
I vouch for Mark.
Attached file Public key — 
Form FAXed and mailed, key attached.  (Hi, Dave.)
form received.
i absolutely vouch for mark.
Shaver and Darin - Can you sr?
I'm only familiar with one of Mark's patch sets, and though it was pretty good
work I'm not really comfortable weighing in on just that basis.
bryner, peterv - can you guys sr?
I can sr, if that counts.
acct. activated. form received. over to justdave for SSH key.
Assignee: marcia → justdave
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
SSH key placed.

Your CVSROOT should be:

  mark%moxienet.com@cvs.mozilla.org:/cvsroot

Don't forget to set your CVS_RSH environment variable to "ssh".

Feel free to contact me if you have any problems connecting.

And welcome to the insanity ;)
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Do you still want feedback on Mark's work?  Though our SR requirements may be
dubious, it seems like process wasn't followed here.  Should we care?
Feedback would be nice, but we decided to make an exception based on the fact that he is working in 
areas that me, smfr, and pink know best. Also, we could use help immediately. He is very active now and I 
could do without having to land his patches all the time myself since it's a busy time. Also, his 
performance is excellent, and beyond doubt as far as I can tell. I think others who know his work feel that 
way too.
I haven't seen his OS X code, but I can vouch for darn decent Mac 68k code and
Linux code 4 or 5 years ago. :)  Back when I last knew him, he'd been working on
SSL-related code for Lynx, I believe.
(In reply to comment #15)
> Feedback would be nice, but we decided to make an exception based on the fact
that he is working in 
> areas that me, smfr, and pink know best.

Who's "we", out of curiosity?  CVS access isn't meant to be gated only by
technical understanding of the area in question, especially because I don't
think this account was meant to be restricted in any way to that area.

Marcia said that sometimes exceptions are made in the sr process, but you are free to object and have 
access revoked. I suggested that we, as in me and marcia and dave miller (me and those who must actually 
enable the account) make an exception for the reasons stated in comment #15. If I had any doubts at all 
as to whether or not people would approve I would not have suggested an exception.

If you disagree with the decision his account can be disabled until we get sr'ed. I don't want to cause 
problems for anyone - sorry if the exception is deemed a bad decision.
I feel compelled to comment, because this does affect me at least a little bit.

I didn't feel that the process of gaining cvs access was hurried.  Maybe that's
a factor of having never gone through the process before, or maybe it's because
the process, at least as I understand it, is not crystal clear.  Or maybe it's
because for the past two months, I had been holding myself to the same standards
that those with cvs access are held to, albeit with others checking in my
patches.  I've been babysitting the tree after my patches were checked in, and
if testing patches in different configurations were a religion, I'd be a high
priest: I've got eleven different objdirs on this machine alone.  Hey, anyone
need an extra tinderbox?

I understand that it's natural to be suspicious of newcomers and outsiders, and
that this is a significant reason that the bars are set where they are, wherever
that may be.  I have been working steadily throughout all areas of the tree, and
if I've collected fewer signatures than is customary, it's only because I was
mostly being watched by a few people who wanted to be involved with what I was
doing, and their involvement helped expedite my goal, which was really only to
improve the product.  If I've flown lower than some folks' radars, it's only
because a lot of the areas I was working in were areas where the problems I was
solving were below those same radars.  Porting to an architecture that hasn't
even shipped yet can be a thankless job.  That's not to say that I've restricted
myself to build config, either.  I've found myself in hairy spots like
xpconnect, and deep down in core areas like netwerk and content.

I'd like to think that my record, however obscure it may be to some, speaks for
itself.  In case there are doubts, I'd be pleased to walk anyone through the
list of 44 bugs I've been involved with over the past two months.  Those of you
computing my bugs per day quotient should be advised that I was on vacation for
a week during that same period.

If you'd feel more comfortable suspending my access until other formalities are
fulfilled, that's fine.  I would continue to follow the same practices I had
been holding myself to.  I would only hope that you don't set the bar so high
that others in my position might mistake your concern for the product's
integrity for members-only bitterness and find themselves intimidated and
unwilling to participate.  I apologize for whatever my part in this has been to
anyone who feels that the rug's been pulled out from beneath them, and hope that
none of you are taking this personally.  I know I'm sure not.
I certainly don't feel that any rug was pulled out from under me for what it's
worth ;-)

When I checked my email this afternoon, I saw comment #8 requesting my review,
so I clicked to the bug and found that it was already resolved fixed.  Ok, so I
figured someone else did SR in my place.  I scanned down the bug and didn't see
any comment explaining what had taken place (shaver punted, josh asked bryner
and peterv for feedback, simon gave SR, and then the account was activated). 
Not a big deal in my mind since I trust josh, simon, and pink to make a good
decision here, but it wasn't clear that they had been used for the "3 SRs
required" rule.  So, I thought I'd poke to see what was up.

Personally, I'm not sure the "3 SRs required" for CVS access is the best rule
since the list of SRs is not exactly representative of our top hackers.  Perhaps
it should be revised to require 3 top hackers (instead of only SRs) to approve
CVS access.
I'd have sr'ed when given the chance to. I don't think the rush and making an
exception was necessary (I've sr'ed for others with at least the record of
Mark), but I'll let others (staff/drivers) decide on what should happen.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: