| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2015-02-06, o godz. 17:17:31 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:08:47 +0000 |
| 6 |
>> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > "Let's track him for one month and revert any major breakage quickly" |
| 8 |
>> > is our answer to what the rest of the world does: review. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Then perhaps this topic should be put on hold until Gentoo has Git, |
| 11 |
>> automated building and a review tool online. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Sounds like a chicken/egg problem. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
How does instituting a review process depend on not recruiting new |
| 17 |
developers? A chicken/egg problem is one with circular dependencies. |
| 18 |
You can work out a review-based process without touching the current |
| 19 |
developer recruitment process. It makes far more sense to validate |
| 20 |
the new process BEFORE touching the old one. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm not saying that we can't improve on the current recruitment |
| 23 |
process. I just don't think we should just say "who needs new |
| 24 |
developers anyway - if we didn't have enough developers somebody would |
| 25 |
finally get around to creating a review process." |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives