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 |