Alec Warner wrote: > Its difficult to make a large change like "all commits require review", > particularly for long-time contributors who are expecting to move quickly.
I think it's a character flaw (maybe hubris due to lack of experience and/or ignorance?) to lack the humility to say that I would prefer my commits to be reviewed by peers. It is obviously easier to stick my head in the sand, but then I should probably keep my crap in an overlay. (I do, and am happy!) If I were committing to gentoo I would want help from my peers to ensure that what I commit is not just done well but also done right. > I'd be curious how many subprojects use review I suspect that it's rare. Most developers are in my experience unable to work with review. > learning purposes. Another significant benefit of review, besides the obvious quality benefit. > I'd also be curious what adoption of a code review system would be > like if it was not required (but was available, and perhaps > required for specific subprojects that adopt it.) I think this is a lovely idea! I'd really like that setup! //Peter
