| 1 |
Patrick Lauer: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 17 January 2015 17:25:15 hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Patrick Lauer: |
| 4 |
>>> On Friday 16 January 2015 18:29:08 hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Patrick Lauer: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On 01/16/15 23:26, hasufell wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> Patrick Lauer (patrick): |
| 8 |
>>>>>>> patrick 15/01/16 04:16:55 |
| 9 |
>>>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>>>> Modified: ChangeLog |
| 11 |
>>>>>>> Added: libuv-1.2.1.ebuild |
| 12 |
>>>>>>> Log: |
| 13 |
>>>>>>> Bump |
| 14 |
>>>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>>>> I expect people to ask me for review if they bump any of my packages. |
| 16 |
>>>>>> That includes QA team members. |
| 17 |
>>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>> Are you always in such a bad mood? |
| 19 |
>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>> Do you, as QA team member, think that a review workflow improves quality? |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>>> No. |
| 23 |
>>> |
| 24 |
>>> Bureaucracy does not improve quality by itself. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> Patrick, I am really sorry, but this answer made me laugh and cry. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> A review workflow is a fundamental concept in programming methodology |
| 29 |
>> and we have decades of experience that taught us how important it is. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> But just "add review" or "add agile" doesn't fix quality. Same way Security is |
| 32 |
> not just a checkbox, but a process. (Plus there's the whole manpower thing |
| 33 |
> we'll ignore for now, etc. etc. ...) |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Yes exactly. A review is not a checkbox, but a process (in contrary to |
| 37 |
running repoman). It's the process of asking someone for comments on |
| 38 |
your patch, getting useful answers and then going ahead with a commit maybe. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
You didn't follow that process. That in conjunction with your weird |
| 41 |
answer makes me think that you really don't like getting reviews. Your |
| 42 |
attempts to relativize the review workflow defined in devmanual (which |
| 43 |
is still a bit lax, tbh) is confusing at best. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
So unless you can tell me how your flawed commit (the sed call was |
| 46 |
silently broken) did improve the quality of my ebuild, I am still |
| 47 |
insisting on a review workflow. |
Archives