837096 - Commit Access (Level 3) for Dale Harvey: mozilla-central commit

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

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

Description

[Dale Harvey (:daleharvey)]

Level 1 Access was: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=753173

Comment 1

[Josh Matthews [:jdm]]

mozilla-central requires level 3 access. You'll need to have another module owner/peer vouch for you in this bug as well.

Comment 2

[Dale Harvey (:daleharvey)]

I assume they cant be the same voucher (jlebar) from the last one? vingetun will do it when he gets internet that works, Fabrice?

Comment 3

[Vivien Nicolas (:vingtetun) (:21) - (NOT reading bugmails, needinfo? please)]

I vouch.

Comment 4

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

Where does everyone keep reading that level 2 is mozilla-central?

Comment 5

[Dale Harvey (:daleharvey)]

It was just a matter of not RTFM, Level 2 - General Access sounded right and it comes after 1, I didnt check what 3 was.

http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/commit-access-policy/

Comment 6

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

Hmm, ok.  You're definitely not the first one to do that.

Comment 7

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

(In reply to Dale Harvey (:daleharvey) from comment #2)
> I assume they cant be the same voucher (jlebar) from the last one?

They can be the same.

Also, not that I expect this to be an issue in this particular case, but the requirement is for two module owner/peer vouchers, and they don't "carry over" from the level 1 access bug (a vouch for level 1 access doesn't necessarily imply a vouch for level 3 access).

Comment 8

[[:fabrice] Fabrice Desré]

I vouch for Dale.

Comment 9

[Justin Lebar (not reading bugmail)]

While we're clarifying the procedure: Do any two module owners/peers work, or do they need to be peers of modules which live in m-c?  If it's the latter, I vouch for Dale.  :)

Comment 10

[Rick Bryce [:rbryce]]

Speaking on behalf of the IT team here.  When we flip bits to give access, our knowledge of the vouchers is completely based on tribal knowledge.  We would love some clarity on who can vouch for commit access.  Im glad to do the documentation work:)

Level 3 access granted

Comment 11

[Vivien Nicolas (:vingtetun) (:21) - (NOT reading bugmails, needinfo? please)]

(In reply to Justin Lebar [:jlebar] from comment #9)
> While we're clarifying the procedure: Do any two module owners/peers work,
> or do they need to be peers of modules which live in m-c?  If it's the
> latter, I vouch for Dale.  :)

And since you're a peer of 6 modules does it count for 6 vouches? :)

Comment 12

[Dumitru Gherman [:dumitru]]

(In reply to Rick Bryce [:rbryce] from comment #10)
> Speaking on behalf of the IT team here.  When we flip bits to give access,
> our knowledge of the vouchers is completely based on tribal knowledge.  We
> would love some clarity on who can vouch for commit access.  Im glad to do
> the documentation work:)

Not quite true...there are already the "despots" who take care of ensuring that the vouches are OK. It's not IT's responsibility to know this. It becomes our job once the bug is moved to our queue.

Comment 13

[Rick Bryce [:rbryce]]

(In reply to Dumitru Gherman [:dumitru] from comment #12)
> (In reply to Rick Bryce [:rbryce] from comment #10)
> > Speaking on behalf of the IT team here.  When we flip bits to give access,
> > our knowledge of the vouchers is completely based on tribal knowledge.  We
> > would love some clarity on who can vouch for commit access.  Im glad to do
> > the documentation work:)
> 
> Not quite true...there are already the "despots" who take care of ensuring
> that the vouches are OK. It's not IT's responsibility to know this. It
> becomes our job once the bug is moved to our queue.

"Tribal Knowledge".  I believe it is still our job to verify that this is done correctly.  Sure, we can just trust that when gavin kicks the bug to Server Ops its good to go.  I would prefer to, "Trust, but verify"

Comment 14

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

Since our only purpose is to "verify", adding an extra verification step seems potentially burdensome :) But I think the information at http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/ is correct and mostly complete - if you see stuff missing we can fix it.

Comment 15

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

(In reply to Justin Lebar [:jlebar] from comment #9)
> While we're clarifying the procedure: Do any two module owners/peers work,
> or do they need to be peers of modules which live in m-c?

The policy says the latter, but I think in practice we'd consider Gaia repos to also be "level 3".

Comment 16

[Rick Bryce [:rbryce]]

(In reply to :Gavin Sharp (use [e-mail] for email) from comment #14)
> Since our only purpose is to "verify", adding an extra verification step
> seems potentially burdensome :) But I think the information at
> http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/ is correct and mostly complete -
> if you see stuff missing we can fix it.

Awesome. I only chimed in because there seemed to be confusion, on the process as a whole.  I really just wanted to make sure we are doing our part to make things clear and simple for the end users.