| 1 |
On Saturday 08 September 2007, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9/8/07, Christian Faulhammer <opfer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>: |
| 4 |
> > > After much toiling, Infra has finally got the commits list active. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Kudos to you all! |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > What we now need is the installation of some kind of peer review. For |
| 9 |
> > example add to the recruitment guide a recommendation to watch the |
| 10 |
> > recruitee one mentored on the commits mailing list. |
| 11 |
> > All other commits should be reviewed. Arch work is normally |
| 12 |
> > done in a team and all teams watch each other, so that works quite |
| 13 |
> > good, as keywords are done wrong far too often. |
| 14 |
> > Any ideas about an efficient way to establish such a process? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Can we see how often the list gets used first? Maybe things will |
| 17 |
> improve in the next bit of time and we don't need any extra formal |
| 18 |
> process. I have no problem adding to the guide that mentors should |
| 19 |
> watch mentees commits (that is technically already required even |
| 20 |
> though many do not). I'd rather have a bunch of people pointing out |
| 21 |
> problems on commits in an ad-hoc manner than have 'All Commits |
| 22 |
> Reviewed(TM)' ;) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
buy Alex a beer |
| 25 |
-mike |
Archives