| 1 |
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300 |
| 2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it |
| 7 |
> > through cvs? No thanks. I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a |
| 8 |
> > spelling mistake. :P |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review |
| 11 |
> system should reduce having them in the first place. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
People make mistakes. Anyways my point is that requiring a peer review for |
| 14 |
trivial changes is just unneeded bureaucracy. Even for non-trivial changes, |
| 15 |
it doesn't make sense to force someone who knows their eclass inside out and |
| 16 |
knows what they're doing to get a review from someone else who may not have a |
| 17 |
clue. I'm not saying that peer-review shouldn't be done; it's a very good |
| 18 |
idea, especially if you're new, or unsure of your changes, or you have a team |
| 19 |
consisting of more than one person. In fact I would support a policy that |
| 20 |
said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing. But enforcing it through |
| 21 |
cvs is never going to fly. Just use common sense. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If we were having ongoing issues with people breaking eclasses then I could |
| 24 |
see where you're coming from. But as it is, it's a non-problem. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
fonts, by design, by neglect |
| 29 |
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
| 30 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives