1 |
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300 |
2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
5 |
|
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. |
12 |
|
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. |
22 |
|
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. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
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 |