On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > 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. >
To an extent I agree with you. However, a workflow that works great for a tight-knit group of 6 devs working on one set of packages that were designed by upstream to work together might not work as well for a set of 50 devs working on 300 packages that are completely independent. We should start with small teams, but I think it remains to be seen if it ever grows to encompass most of the tree. That said, it might grow to cover the core system components and that might be good enough for most purposes. Users might not notice if one of the 15 reversi implementations in the tree breaks, but would prefer that gcc, glibc, and qt be of a higher quality. -- Rich
