1 |
> On 04/24/2010 09:14 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300 |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> 17:34 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: how easy to it to prevent commits to |
6 |
> >> CVS if the commit message doesn't match a certain pattern? |
7 |
> >> 17:36 <@robbat2|na> go and checkout the CVSROOT and there should be an |
8 |
> >> example there |
9 |
> >> 17:37 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: Ok so doable then. Thanks. |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without |
12 |
> >> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the diff |
13 |
> >> in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent |
14 |
> >> stuff too. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > no thanks; we already have the policy to require that major changes to |
17 |
> > broad impact eclasses have gone through -dev, no need to add more |
18 |
> > bureaucracy. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> But the policy is not tested by the quizzes and we have had cases lately |
21 |
> where large diffs have been committed without gentoo-dev review. With |
22 |
> peer review it's likely that the reviewer is familiar with what should |
23 |
> be sent to gentoo-dev as hesitant/new people won't give their approval |
24 |
> that easily. |
25 |
|
26 |
1) Why is it of any relevance whether or not the quizzes test this policy? |
27 |
2) Where is this policy recorded, and why does devmanual.g.o seem to |
28 |
(possibly) contradict it? [1] I'm not sure of the nature of the commits but |
29 |
were they non-general? |
30 |
|
31 |
- Alistair |
32 |
|
33 |
[1] "It is not usually necessary to email the gentoo-dev list before making |
34 |
changes to a non-general eclass which you maintain. Use common sense here." |