Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:14:09
Message-Id: CAGfcS_m7omVUGYR1sZzZWNSWB4LpbedYiazR4Rw7dUeGEPXzXQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule by hasufell
1 On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > I'm not sure if you followed my argumentation. I basically said that it
4 > is unrealistic to enforce a review-only workflow and that it should/can
5 > start within gentoo-internal projects. You are just repeating what I
6 > already said.
7 >
8 > My point was that I am not mixing up different issues as Andrew claimed,
9 > because a review workflow can be seen in a different context.
10 > And then, the repeated argument of "not enough manpower for review
11 > workflow" doesn't make a lot of sense. The problem is the mindest/culture.
12 >
13
14 To an extent I agree with you. However, a workflow that works great
15 for a tight-knit group of 6 devs working on one set of packages that
16 were designed by upstream to work together might not work as well for
17 a set of 50 devs working on 300 packages that are completely
18 independent. We should start with small teams, but I think it remains
19 to be seen if it ever grows to encompass most of the tree.
20
21 That said, it might grow to cover the core system components and that
22 might be good enough for most purposes. Users might not notice if one
23 of the 15 reversi implementations in the tree breaks, but would prefer
24 that gcc, glibc, and qt be of a higher quality.
25
26 --
27 Rich