| 1 |
On 19/01/15 16:47, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think you forgot an important point: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> * lack of practical QA: no review workflow and no appropriate tools for |
| 5 |
> reviewing |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I could start a long text block about why reviewing is mandatory for QA, |
| 8 |
> but let's just think about it this way: |
| 9 |
> What do you think would happen if the linux kernel switched to CVS and |
| 10 |
> gave the most active 250 collaborators direct push access to the main |
| 11 |
> Linus repository? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I hope greg k-h does not read this. He'd probably get a heart attack. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Also: people seem to think we don't have enough manpower for a review |
| 16 |
> workflow. No, it's really the other way around. If you make |
| 17 |
> collaboration difficult, then you need a lot more manpower. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I already pointed out that there are _not_ good review tools. There are |
| 21 |
not for a by-email workflow we have in Libav, there aren't really for a |
| 22 |
tool-mediated workflow we could have in Gentoo. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I have no problems in devoting some time on preparing a tool suited for |
| 25 |
our purpose (once we switch to git), but I'd need more volunteers to |
| 26 |
help me with it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
lu |
Archives