798328 - Request for hg account for hg.mozilla.org/build/partner-repacks

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

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

Description

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

i would like to request a hg account to do the pushes for https://hg.mozilla.org/build/partner-repacks/ like as example bug 797838 - so that releng doesn't need to do all the work.

I had access to a private cvs qa repro before (but long ago :) so i signed also the committee agreement ( i think at one of the last summits also again)

Comment 1

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

ping?

Comment 2

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

gavin, marcia,

What do we need here to move forward?

I assume we need:

* Single vouch, assuming repo is L1
* Someone to point to an old repo-request bug that shows Tomcat has a committer agreement on file, -or- marcia/someone to comment saying they have his agreement



For the vouch case, vouch=me

Comment 3

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

the old access bug was https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394903

Comment 4

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

He needs to follow the instructions at http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/commit-access-policy/ for whatever level the repo is at (probably level 2).

I can't see Bug 394903, so I can't confirm that his form is on file from that.

Comment 5

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

See bug 473858 comment 5 for the form.
http://hg.mozilla.org/repo-group?repo=build/partner-repacks says level 2.

Comment 6

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

Still needs a voucher, no?

Comment 7

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

I thought I vouched already, but I guess not. I'm vouching for Tomcat!

Comment 8

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

Short-Answer, IT is ok to proceed.

Long-Answer, here is an excerpt from my #it convo with gavin

[12:57:36]	Callek	gavin: as an aside, does my "ownership" of a handful of SeaMonkey modules count as "module owner" for this L2 use-case voucher?
[12:57:46]	Callek	s/Modules/Sub-Modules/
[12:59:48]	gavin	no
[13:02:57]	Callek	gavin: for record, is there anything that says SeaMonkey -or- Submodules is excluded from this policy, and/or where was this exclusion discussed?
[13:03:28]	Callek	is not saying he disagrees, just trying to clarify if this is arbitrary or already-known
[13:12:08]	gavin	Callek: nothing specific to seamonkey
[13:12:40]	gavin	level 2 access requests generally want access to a specific l2 repo. best to get a voucher that owns that repo.
[13:13:08]	gavin	seamonkey and partner repacks have nothing to do with each other, your vouch "as seamonkey peer" isn't really useful.
[13:13:54]	gavin	your vouch as a member of release engineering is much more relevant, and in any case this is tomcat so I'd have vouched for him anyways
[13:28:07]	Callek	gavin: ahh but the L2 Commit policy says "module owner" not
[13:28:22]	gavin	yes, the policy says things
[13:28:24]	Callek	gavin: ... not "peer" which is why I asked if my "owner" status of SeaMonkey was ok
[13:28:53]	Callek	since its about trust-level, to do the right thing, not accountability-level of specific repos we're talking about with commit policy
[13:29:29]	gavin	in practice it's much more about the latter than the former

Comment 9

[Ryan Watson [:w0ts0n]]

All done.

w0ts0n