| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:08 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> That just shows that our workflow is so broken that we have to ask such |
| 4 |
> things in a quiz. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> "Let's track him for one month and revert any major breakage quickly" is |
| 7 |
> our answer to what the rest of the world does: review. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, arguably the gentoo-sunrise suggestion is more in line with this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I have a bunch of thoughts here, but I think changing the overall |
| 13 |
model of Gentoo so that the role of a developer changes substantially |
| 14 |
is really a separate topic. I'm not opposed to this but I don't think |
| 15 |
we should just ignore the issue of obtaining developers in the hope |
| 16 |
that the need for this will go away. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Even if we went to a review-based workflow, we would STILL need to vet |
| 19 |
new reviewers in some way, so we'd still have many of the same |
| 20 |
challenges. If anything the role of a reviewer is even more difficult |
| 21 |
to fill than a committer, since committers have the freedom to only |
| 22 |
work on the stuff they want to work on but if we want review to |
| 23 |
actually work we need reviewers to cover anything the committers want |
| 24 |
to work on. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives