Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:34:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits by "Petteri Räty"
1 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300
2 Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
4 > On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
6 > > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
7 > > through cvs? No thanks. I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
8 > > spelling mistake. :P
9 >
10 > How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review
11 > system should reduce having them in the first place.
13 People make mistakes. Anyways my point is that requiring a peer review for
14 trivial changes is just unneeded bureaucracy. Even for non-trivial changes,
15 it doesn't make sense to force someone who knows their eclass inside out and
16 knows what they're doing to get a review from someone else who may not have a
17 clue. I'm not saying that peer-review shouldn't be done; it's a very good
18 idea, especially if you're new, or unsure of your changes, or you have a team
19 consisting of more than one person. In fact I would support a policy that
20 said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing. But enforcing it through
21 cvs is never going to fly. Just use common sense.
23 If we were having ongoing issues with people breaking eclasses then I could
24 see where you're coming from. But as it is, it's a non-problem.
27 --
28 fonts, by design, by neglect
29 gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect
30 wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature