| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:36:43 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@××××.org> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs |
| 8 |
> | with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how |
| 9 |
> | to increase quality by default? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I am doing. I'm doing it by trying to improve the documentation and the |
| 12 |
> entry requirements for new developers. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> | > Problem is, getting decent |
| 15 |
> | > QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult |
| 16 |
> | |
| 17 |
> | So why not build peer review into the process/policy? Require that the |
| 18 |
> | team leads (who could deligate as they see fit) perform verification |
| 19 |
> | (peer review) before closing out bugs. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Because that won't help in the slightest. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things by |
| 25 |
default is bad? Explain? |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iD8DBQFDBn8e2QTTR4CNEQARAqaHAJ9erzzbR6qac8px3g+Ii4mI2nuBmQCeKW78 |
| 30 |
uVVAdNgFYoXpTaI7z5FxDsg= |
| 31 |
=iZAz |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives