Re: The future of commit access policy for core Firefox

On 10/03/2017 10:58, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> If we don't trust the author to not 'sneak in' unrelated changes off an
> r+'d patch, we ought not to give them commit access.

Addendum: if we feel this sets the bar for commit access too high, 
perhaps we need more than 1 level of commit access for this, so that the 
tooling enforces trust for the "r+ with comments" case. If I have L3 
commit access and review the patch of someone else with L3 commit 
access, I don't need to worry about this, but it would be mildly more 
palatable for this to be different if I'm reviewing stuff for someone 
with L1 commit access.

Either that or the ability for the (L3) reviewer to adjust minor nits 
while reviewing, so that the patch doesn't need to go through a whole 
other cycle of review. Of course, that then offers the reviewer the 
ability to "sneak in" more changes... :-)

~ Gijs


> ~ Gijs
>
>>
>> bholley
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Mike Connor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> (please direct followups to dev-planning, cross-posting to governance,
>>> firefox-dev, dev-platform)
>>>
>>>
>>> Nearly 19 years after the creation of the Mozilla Project, commit access
>>> remains essentially the same as it has always been.  We've evolved the
>>> vouching process a number of times, CVS has long since been replaced by
>>> Mercurial & others, and we've taken some positive steps in terms of
>>> securing the commit process.  And yet we've never touched the core
>>> idea of
>>> granting developers direct commit access to our most important
>>> repositories.  After a large number of discussions since taking
>>> ownership
>>> over commit policy, I believe it is time for Mozilla to change that
>>> practice.
>>>
>>> Before I get into the meat of the current proposal, I would like to
>>> outline
>>> a set of key goals for any change we make.  These goals have been
>>> informed
>>> by a set of stakeholders from across the project including the
>>> engineering,
>>> security, release and QA teams.  It's inevitable that any significant
>>> change will disrupt longstanding workflows.  As a result, it is critical
>>> that we are all aligned on the goals of the change.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've identified the following goals as critical for a responsible commit
>>> access policy:
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Compromising a single individual's credentials must not be
>>> sufficient
>>>    to land malicious code into our products.
>>>    - Two-factor auth must be a requirement for all users approving or
>>>    pushing a change.
>>>    - The change that gets pushed must be the same change that was
>>> approved.
>>>    - Broken commits must be rejected automatically as a part of the
>>> commit
>>>    process.
>>>
>>>
>>> In order to achieve these goals, I propose that we commit to making the
>>> following changes to all Firefox product repositories:
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Direct commit access to repositories will be strictly limited to
>>>    sheriffs and a subset of release engineering.
>>>       - Any direct commits by these individuals will be limited to
>>> fixing
>>>       bustage that automation misses and handling branch merges.
>>>    - All other changes will go through an autoland-based workflow.
>>>       - Developers commit to a staging repository, with scripting that
>>>       connects the changeset to a Bugzilla attachment, and integrates
>>> with review
>>>       flags.
>>>       - Reviewers and any other approvers interact with the changeset as
>>>       today (including ReviewBoard if preferred), with Bugzilla flags as
>>> the
>>>       canonical source of truth.
>>>       - Upon approval, the changeset will be pushed into autoland.
>>>       - If the push is successful, the change is merged to
>>> mozilla-central,
>>>       and the bug updated.
>>>
>>> I know this is a major change in practice from how we currently operate,
>>> and my ask is that we work together to understand the impact and
>>> concerns.
>>> If you find yourself disagreeing with the goals, let's have that
>>> discussion
>>> instead of arguing about the solution.  If you agree with the goals, but
>>> not the solution, I'd love to hear alternative ideas for how we can
>>> achieve
>>> the outcomes outlined above.
>>>
>>> -- Mike
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev-planning mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>>>
>