Closed Bug 319955 Opened 20 years ago Closed 19 years ago

Create CVS account for Peter Weilbacher

Categories

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

Product:
mozilla.org
Component:
Repository Account Requests
Platform:
x86
OS/2
Type:
task
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
VERIFIED FIXED

People

(Reporter: mozilla, Assigned: oremj)

References

(
URL
)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

public DSA key
602 bytes, text/plain
Details
I would mainly like to use the account to check in patches for the OS/2 version. In addition I would like to be able to check in patches for the SeaMonkey UI and small stuff. Stuff like this that I have worked on include bug 264647, bug 161466, bug 199763, bug 257230 (first category) and bug 161466, bug 263312, bug 277265 (UI stuff).
Attached file public DSA key —
OK, here is the SSH key. Hmm, is the fax number listed on http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/form.html still valid? The address was updated after the move but the fax # was not.
I'll vouch for Peter.
Wow, thanks Mike! I tried the fax no. a few times but either my machine doesn't like to talk to the one at Mozilla HQ or the number is wrong and I woke somebody else up in the middle of the night (Or it went through and now there are five copies lying around). Hmm, if a signed and scanned-in version of the form is no good then I will probably revert to the good old post to send it.
I sent the fax successfully on 20th Dec 2005.
Fax received. I see mkaply vouched, looks as if we need a few SRs to weigh in before I can grant access.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
It seems I didn't understand the super-review stuff in the CVS account guidelines very well. The sr+s for all the patches that I have done in the past don't count here?
Peter: No, they don't count. I need some SRs to actually post in the bug in order to move forward. I would recommend adding a few more SRs to this bug so they can look at your overall work.
OK, if I understood correctly now, they are not obsolete, just need to be repeated here. So, neil, jag, mconnor, mkaply, wtchang, could you please look again at bug 161466, bug 263312 (neil+jag), bug 199763 (mkaply), bug 277265 (mconnor), and bug 271883 (wtchang), respectively, for the work I did and confirm the sr+ here, too?
Peter: I haven't seen enough of your work to vouch for you. I'm not a Mozilla superreviewer, so I can't vouch for you as a superreviewer anyway. Marcia: I can say that Peter's work on bug 271883 (which I reviewed) was good. If Peter's checkins will be limited to the OS/2 port, I think Mike Kaply's vouching should carry a lot of weight.
I'm not an SR either, so I don't count (sometimes people use superreview as a second-review for port-specific changes, which is all I've done for Peter). Neil and Jag are SRs though.
OK, thanks for the comments. Neil also feels that I haven't done enough (large?) patches. Well, to support my case I went through bugzilla for a few hours and have now collected a list of nearly all the bugs where I have contributed patches. If anyone is still interested, I uploaded it as an ASCII file to <http://weilbacher.org/Mozilla/MyMozPatches>. It contains a total of 50 bugs, 14 of these are trivial fixes (one liners or so), 19 are small ones (a few lines), 7 are medium sizes (more than 15-20 lines or so) and 7 are what I considered substantial contributions and where I think I added my name to the file header. While more than half of these patches were actually done for OS/2, I guess that only up to a third were actually in /os2/ directories or *OS2* files.
URL: http://weilbacher.org/Mozilla/MyMozPa...
Peter: thanks for adding the attachment. You really need to add some SRs to this bug so they can take a look at your URL and evaluate the code more closely.
Do the same requirements apply even when only for maintaining the OS/2 port?
I have added all the SRs that to my knowledge had anything to do with the stuff I have done up to now. Actually, I am also not terribly interested in pursuing this any further, at least not at this point. If CVS access had happened before Xmas then this would have boosted my efforts to contribute more. But as this is such a difficult process, I am -- for the moment -- content with getting my fixes into my private builds. If they then also after a few months appear in the Mozilla codebase I don't care too much.
I believe that Peter deserves CVS access in order to be able to maintain the OS/2 port, but I'm still waiting for an answer to my comment 13...
Neil: I don't think the document here - http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html speaks to maintaining ports specifically, but mkaply may be able to shed some light. (In reply to comment #15) > I believe that Peter deserves CVS access in order to be able to maintain the > OS/2 port, but I'm still waiting for an answer to my comment 13... >
FWIW seigei_d got a CVS account to work on the BeOS port long ago (bug 186466) -- without sr. Also, mkaply usually either does r/sr+ himself on OS/2 patches or just r+ before checking them in. As a sidenote, I don't really understand why this CVS account process is so much about super-reviews (I have to get a review for any check-in anyway) but nobody seems to care if I know how to handle CVS at all. (I use it in my daytime job all the time, but have never used cvs-over-ssh.)
<http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/getting-cvs-write-access.html> says one should CC brendan and scc in problematic cases. Let's see if they have to say something about this special case.
Hmm, scc@mozilla.org doesn't even get the bug mail any more. I guess that page is out of date...
For port-specific stuff, I'm happy to sr here, and think we should create the account. But you alluded to also wanting to check in seamonkey fixes and such, so I'm not sure if OS/2-only is what you're really after. Could you clarify? (The sr requirement (currently being debated on dev-planning, as it happens) is not to validate your understanding of the use of CVS, but your understanding of how Mozilla conducts software development. Tree and review rules, post-checkin tinderbox watching, etc.)
In the past I thought that I could get involved a bit more with the SeaMonkey to Toolkit stuff, but I have my hands full with OS/2 changes currently and at least in the next months. So for now OS/2 only checkin permission (whatever that means) would be a great step forward, thanks. But in principle I would also want to be able to check in stuff like bug 312951... These small patches normally sit there and wait for checkin for months. For that and stuff like bug 263312 and bug 277265 (that I worked on because of OS/2 but that equally affected Linux), would I then have to file another bug to be "upgraded"? All this is very hazy (not just to me as the discussion in the newsgroup shows).
Account created. Please limit your checkins to the OS-2 port for now. At which time you want Seamonkey check in perhaps you can get some SRs to chime in. Over to server-ops for SSH key.
Assignee: marcia → server-ops
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Assignee: server-ops → oremj
Your CVS account has been created. Your CVSROOT should be: mozilla%weilbacher.org@cvs.mozilla.org:/cvsroot Don't forget to set your CVS_RSH environment variable to 'ssh'. If you have any problems connecting, let me know.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Great. I now verified that it works for both checkout and checkin.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: