1 |
On 07/05/2015 08:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: |
3 |
>> It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> This is impossible in our case due to the lack of manpower. |
6 |
> We already have a lot of bugs, patches, stabilization requests |
7 |
> hanging over there for months and even years. Stabilization request |
8 |
> will require at least two developers to participate in each commit. |
9 |
> This will double manpower required at least. Such approach can kill |
10 |
> the whole project. |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
People misinterpret "manpower". If we successfully switch to a |
14 |
code-review approach, then we will need _less_ manpower in the sense of |
15 |
actual gentoo developers. |
16 |
|
17 |
However, this does not and cannot happen over night since it requires a |
18 |
shift of thinking and a change of culture, involving the whole community. |
19 |
|
20 |
But if we just want to add more independent committers to the core |
21 |
gentoo tree, then we are definitely making quality worse. |
22 |
|
23 |
I'm not particularly sure that an alternative review-based workflow can |
24 |
work here, given that our workflow has been broken for quite a few |
25 |
years. Such things become a strong habit and may leave some of our |
26 |
developers in confusion. |
27 |
|
28 |
But it could start (and already has, afaik) with project-internal |
29 |
requirements (e.g. kde project demanding reviews). When the different |
30 |
projects increase workflow strictness, it will increase overall |
31 |
strictness as well. |
32 |
|
33 |
> Code review is good at a limited scope, e.g. for non-developers |
34 |
> where we have review anyway. |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
This is not enough to maintain high quality. I've seen some ebuilds in |
38 |
user overlays which have higher quality than their gx86 counterpart. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
However, that said... I don't think it currently makes sense to enforce |
42 |
a strict global review workflow. However, we should encourage |
43 |
gentoo-internal projects to become more strict (and e.g. only have one |
44 |
or two "pushers"). |