| 1 |
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:22:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@××××.org> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Fernando J. Pereda wrote: |
| 4 |
| > I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' |
| 5 |
| > the ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to |
| 6 |
| > work'. REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho. |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflect the intended meaning. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Ok. You have until whenever I next encounter Jeff to come up with a |
| 11 |
better name, or REVIEWED it is. And it seems I was dreaming about |
| 12 |
bugzilla allowing () stuff after keywords entries (maybe I was thinking |
| 13 |
of one of the zillion other bug trackers out there...), so there'll be |
| 14 |
no "who did the review" tag suffix for now. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| And I'm please that Ciaran is promoting peer review of ebuilds. Now if |
| 17 |
| we can just get him off the idea that dev submitted stuff is 'correct |
| 18 |
| by default' we'll be getting somewhere in terms of QA. ;) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and |
| 21 |
the number of monkeys who have commit access? Problem is, getting decent |
| 22 |
QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult -- the |
| 23 |
kind of people who won't accept QA feedback are usually the kind who |
| 24 |
are making the worst mistakes. The maintainer-wanted list is simply an |
| 25 |
easier target... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 29 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 30 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives