| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@××××.org> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
> | > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" |
| 9 |
> | > <nadams@××××.org> |
| 10 |
> | > wrote: |
| 11 |
> | > | > Because that won't help in the slightest. |
| 12 |
> | > | |
| 13 |
> | > | So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing |
| 14 |
> | > | things by default is bad? Explain? |
| 15 |
> | > |
| 16 |
> | > No, I'm saying that having a 'team lead' throw some arbitrary stamp |
| 17 |
> | > of approval upon bug closures is worthless. |
| 18 |
> | |
| 19 |
> | So you're problem isn't with the peer review I'm proposing but instead |
| 20 |
> | quality of work of the team leads? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Not at all. I'm saying that a) most 'team leads' will not do proper |
| 23 |
> checks because they don't have time to and b) the limited time that |
| 24 |
> 'team leads' have is better spent elsewhere. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I really am curious here: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
a) What are the team leads spending most of their time on? |
| 29 |
b) What is more important than improving the code? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iD8DBQFDB0zS2QTTR4CNEQARAjUbAJ92tanYPNEXx6ZHyiZcFDjHpohgHQCePN0t |
| 36 |
v9BxNT1eetr9uZ8Be5PwEAw= |
| 37 |
=50IR |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives