On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Viktor Engelmann <viktor.engelm...@qt.io> wrote: > I am thinking about the scenario when I read a 300 line commit and I am > unsure about some of the lines. Say it removes one include and adds > another include. > > If that commit comes from someone whom I talk to every day - someone > whom I know to be very concerned about security and privacy - and > someone I know is competent and has approver rights - I might ignore > these 2 lines and assume that the compiler will fail on the CI in case > the removed header was still needed. > > When the commit comes from someone whom I have never heard of - I will > look into whether there is a symbol that will now be resolved > differently - and if there is, I assume that this "differently" opens a > backdoor.
In defense of Viktor: With some better wording (and no per-company aspect), the Open Governance model already provides for something like that, since it's a meritocracy. It's not outlandish if you spend more time reviewing and testing patches from people with low merit than with high merit. Moving on... Some users have been complaining about the review process and have rotting patches, so I welcome brainstorming around this. Let's see if we can conclude improvements! Regards, Sergio Martins _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
