On 07/09/2015 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make >> community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code >> review) then you solve several problems at once, because you need _less_ >> developers. Are you aware that we could potentially "pull" in hundreds >> of contributors who chose to work on their personal overlay instead of >> the gentoo tree? Are you aware that there are a lot of those people? > > Yes and no. > > I'll agree that with a review workflow we might only need one reviewer > for every 10 contributors, or something like that. If we have 100 > active devs today, in theory we could instead turn 20 of them into > reviewers, and now we can support 2000 contributors. > > There are some big assumptions with this kind of argument, though: > 1. We might find that we don't even have 20 devs interested in doing > a substantial amount of review. > 2. The main repository is very diverse. If 50% of our packages have > only one person interested in maintaining them, then they get dropped > since reviewers will ignore their contributions. Or, they'll just > rubber-stamp them which is adding valueless work. > > So, a review system could make manpower either more of an issue or > less of one. I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up > putting the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit, > and a new crop signs up who is interested in using the new workflow, > and then they're starting with zero experience. > > I think a review model is best implemented by individual project > teams. They could use it to track changes in an overlay or branch in > the main tree, and then move those into the main tree using whatever > quality system seems best. The team can figure out what is working > best for it, and if over time a large number of devs feel that it is a > good way to work we could then talk about doing it with the main tree. > I still suspect we'll end up having problems with the 70% of packages > that don't fall into a project though. >
I'm not sure if you followed my argumentation. I basically said that it is unrealistic to enforce a review-only workflow and that it should/can start within gentoo-internal projects. You are just repeating what I already said. My point was that I am not mixing up different issues as Andrew claimed, because a review workflow can be seen in a different context. And then, the repeated argument of "not enough manpower for review workflow" doesn't make a lot of sense. The problem is the mindest/culture. However, it makes sense to provide review workflow tools. And they have been demanded quite a few times now I think, even from vapier afair.
