| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 10:10 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>I'm starting to do just that. I've even asked Ciaran to review a |
| 8 |
>>particular ebuild I was interested in so that I could learn from it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That's still not *you* doing the actual work - that's you requesting |
| 11 |
> someone else to review your work - which is good, but a totally |
| 12 |
> different topic which doesn't really belong in this thread, imho. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Its a chicken and egg situation. I need to have a certain level of |
| 15 |
expertise with ebuild syntax and conventions to do the job. So I've |
| 16 |
asked for some help from an expert. Also, I learn things quicker and |
| 17 |
easier by first seeing examples and then seeing the documentation; |
| 18 |
that's just me. Once I've learned a bit, I can start doing things on my |
| 19 |
own. By the way, I didn't create the ebuild. Peer review isn't when you |
| 20 |
review your own work. Its when somebody else, knowlegdable in the |
| 21 |
subject, reviews your work. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>>>If you so desperately want code review in Gentoo, why don't you do what |
| 24 |
>>>every other open source software developer has to do to get his ideas |
| 25 |
>>>through: put some work into it yourself? |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>>See above. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> See above what? The part about you requesting someone to review your |
| 31 |
> ebuild? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
See above, again. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
>>Of course not. But the IEEE *is* all about peer review (as all |
| 36 |
>>scientists have been for the last few hundred years). And here is a nice |
| 37 |
>>high-level article about the benefits of peer review while developing |
| 38 |
>>software for the non-believers :) |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I'm confident that most Gentoo developers agree that peer review is a |
| 41 |
> nice concept |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Peer review is *not* a 'nice concept'. Peer review (as a part of the |
| 44 |
broader scientific method) is how humans have progressed from horses and |
| 45 |
buggies to the level of technology we have today. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> - but... I think you need to sit down and participate in an |
| 48 |
> open source project to fully understand how it works. You can't just |
| 49 |
> step forward and say "this is good, you need to do this" as a bystander |
| 50 |
> - that's not how the open source spirit works. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
This isn't my first F/OSS project. I was active with Fr**Craft before it |
| 53 |
was (wrongly) shut down. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> If you on the other hand step forward and say something like "I've spent |
| 56 |
> the last x months reviewing your code and developed a small set of |
| 57 |
> utilities for doing so, would you be interested in a wider use of |
| 58 |
> these?" I think you'd get a much better welcome. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
*THAT* is a great idea. I am proficient in several scripting languages. |
| 61 |
I am willing to write the tools if someone more knowledgable is willing |
| 62 |
to help me with what the 'best practices' are for ebuilds. Its a 'you |
| 63 |
help me and we'll both help Gentoo' situation. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
> In the open source community this is also known as "show me the code" as |
| 66 |
> in: if you want something done, you'd better be ready to back it up with |
| 67 |
> code and/or actions. Basically, you'll need to put more than words into |
| 68 |
> this, if you want to see it happen. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Agreed. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Nathan |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 75 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
iD8DBQFDCJpN2QTTR4CNEQARAi1lAKCWbAC/0Zf/crUQNlVkPe1zqnwsnQCeNUQY |
| 78 |
v9N1FPnAx5Bc6431eqTK7m8= |
| 79 |
=2qFM |
| 80 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives