1 |
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make |
4 |
> community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code |
5 |
> review) then you solve several problems at once, because you need _less_ |
6 |
> developers. Are you aware that we could potentially "pull" in hundreds |
7 |
> of contributors who chose to work on their personal overlay instead of |
8 |
> the gentoo tree? Are you aware that there are a lot of those people? |
9 |
|
10 |
Yes and no. |
11 |
|
12 |
I'll agree that with a review workflow we might only need one reviewer |
13 |
for every 10 contributors, or something like that. If we have 100 |
14 |
active devs today, in theory we could instead turn 20 of them into |
15 |
reviewers, and now we can support 2000 contributors. |
16 |
|
17 |
There are some big assumptions with this kind of argument, though: |
18 |
1. We might find that we don't even have 20 devs interested in doing |
19 |
a substantial amount of review. |
20 |
2. The main repository is very diverse. If 50% of our packages have |
21 |
only one person interested in maintaining them, then they get dropped |
22 |
since reviewers will ignore their contributions. Or, they'll just |
23 |
rubber-stamp them which is adding valueless work. |
24 |
|
25 |
So, a review system could make manpower either more of an issue or |
26 |
less of one. I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up |
27 |
putting the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit, |
28 |
and a new crop signs up who is interested in using the new workflow, |
29 |
and then they're starting with zero experience. |
30 |
|
31 |
I think a review model is best implemented by individual project |
32 |
teams. They could use it to track changes in an overlay or branch in |
33 |
the main tree, and then move those into the main tree using whatever |
34 |
quality system seems best. The team can figure out what is working |
35 |
best for it, and if over time a large number of devs feel that it is a |
36 |
good way to work we could then talk about doing it with the main tree. |
37 |
I still suspect we'll end up having problems with the 70% of packages |
38 |
that don't fall into a project though. |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Rich |