| 1 |
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:25:03 +0800 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sunday 05 July 2015 13:46:10 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 09:05:59AM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > It's important that the review flow is well-understood and |
| 7 |
> > > > efficient. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > This is impossible in our case due to the lack of manpower. |
| 10 |
> > > We already have a lot of bugs, patches, stabilization requests |
| 11 |
> > > hanging over there for months and even years. Stabilization |
| 12 |
> > > request will require at least two developers to participate in |
| 13 |
> > > each commit. This will double manpower required at least. Such |
| 14 |
> > > approach can kill the whole project. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Agreed. Forcing all commits from developers to go through a code |
| 17 |
> > review from another developer before they hit the tree would |
| 18 |
> > potentially kill the entire project. I would strongly veto |
| 19 |
> > something like this, because we flat out don't have the manpower to |
| 20 |
> > keep up with it. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> ... or you have some pranksters just ok-ing all commits during their |
| 23 |
> morning coffee, independent of content, which would keep things |
| 24 |
> working at the cost of quality ... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Spoken like someone who's never used a code review system. Pranksters |
| 27 |
can no more "ok all commits" than they can "commit whatever they |
| 28 |
like", since you treat giving +2 permissions like you treat giving push |
| 29 |
access. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives