Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:19:26
Message-Id: 1272298747.3664.4.camel@txslpc1d36.wkst.vzwnet.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits by "Petteri Räty"
1 On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 13:11 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
2 > On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
3 > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
4 > > Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
5 > >
6 > >> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without
7 > >> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the diff
8 > >> in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent
9 > >> stuff too.
10 > >
11 > > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it
12 > > through cvs? No thanks. I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a
13 > > spelling mistake. :P
14 > >
15 > >
16 >
17 > How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review
18 > system should reduce having them in the first place.
19
20 Because the reviewer missed it. gentoolkit-0.3.0 is currently being
21 developed by the user community and I review everything before I commit
22 to the gentoolkit repository. It is amazing, how much still gets
23 through the review process (including spelling errors). While reviews
24 will catch a lot of stuff, they won't catch everything.
25
26 Finally, my opinion is in line with Ryan's. Strongly encourage it, but
27 do not force it through cvs.
28
29 Regards,
30 Paul