On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:25:03 +0800 Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sunday 05 July 2015 13:46:10 William Hubbs wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 09:05:59AM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: > > > > It's important that the review flow is well-understood and > > > > efficient. > > > > > > This is impossible in our case due to the lack of manpower. > > > We already have a lot of bugs, patches, stabilization requests > > > hanging over there for months and even years. Stabilization > > > request will require at least two developers to participate in > > > each commit. This will double manpower required at least. Such > > > approach can kill the whole project. > > > > Agreed. Forcing all commits from developers to go through a code > > review from another developer before they hit the tree would > > potentially kill the entire project. I would strongly veto > > something like this, because we flat out don't have the manpower to > > keep up with it. > > > ... or you have some pranksters just ok-ing all commits during their > morning coffee, independent of content, which would keep things > working at the cost of quality ...
Spoken like someone who's never used a code review system. Pranksters can no more "ok all commits" than they can "commit whatever they like", since you treat giving +2 permissions like you treat giving push access. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
