| 1 |
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:14:49 +0200 hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/17/2015 01:00 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:33:06 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> >> Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> On 15/04/15 15:02, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 8 |
> >>> the threshold to become a developer with write access to the |
| 9 |
> >>> gentoo repo is very high |
| 10 |
> >> LOL. No. It's way too low, given our review-less workflow in which any |
| 11 |
> >> dev can do essentially whatever they want. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > The only net results from strict review workflow (when each commit |
| 14 |
> > of each dev must be reviewed and approved by at least N devs) are |
| 15 |
> > tons of bikeshedding, real quality improvement is marginal, because |
| 16 |
> > people are working in different areas anyway. And if you will |
| 17 |
> > consider, that strict review will require N more times effort and |
| 18 |
> > spent time, actual quality of the tree will drop almost N times, |
| 19 |
> > because number of man hours spent on Gentoo is approximately |
| 20 |
> > constant with the same number of devs. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> If you have followed the recent discussions about gentoos organizational |
| 23 |
> structure, review workflow and overlay situation you would know that |
| 24 |
> there is a pretty simple solution for this problem. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I have followed them and I have seen no solution usable in real |
| 27 |
world. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Review workflow will not be random/global. Some gentoo projects already |
| 30 |
> have strict review workflow. You just have to map this properly to the |
| 31 |
> tree. If you do that improperly, then ofc it will be crap. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Please point to exact projects and exact descriptions of workflow |
| 34 |
processes. As for now I see none globally usable. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives