| 1 |
Mike Auty kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us |
| 4 |
>> to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one |
| 7 |
> problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action |
| 8 |
> against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the |
| 9 |
> number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion? I can think og |
| 12 |
> keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain |
| 13 |
> the devs. Are there others I've missed? If they're worth the |
| 14 |
> cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and |
| 15 |
> getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably |
| 16 |
> not... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Mike 5:) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/ |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues |
| 23 |
either. This means that you should have devaway on. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Petteri |
Archives