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 |