On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: >> Contributors - people who contribute in one way or another to the project >> Committers - people who have commit access to the project's repo(s) >> Maintainers - volunteers from the pool of committers who have stepped >> forward to shepherd a single module. This is not a position of authority - >> but >> rather one of responsibility - to ensure coding standards are met, that >> accepted patches don't break things, etc. >> > > So going into that, this is one area where I have difference opinion on > maintainer's responsibility. > > In the write-up, it says "Review, and potentially acceptance, of code changes > from the community. The maintainer is responsible for testing that new > contributions work and do not break the application, and that the code > changes are of high quality." > > I think the maintainer should be responsible for making sure the process from > feature design, code design, code review, to unit testing and integration > testing have been followed but I find that "testing that new contributions > work" to be challenging for a maintainer. I think the committers need to > prove as part of their patch that it doesn't break things. Maintainers can > go back and say "Well, you haven't proved this or that" and can give > suggestions on how to prove it. > > What do others think? > > --Alex
Makes sense to me - but I think we likely need to figure out what the barrier is to 'prove' - and naturally 'proving that nothing is broken' is practically impossible. Perhaps it's a sliding scale - small patches have to demonstrably fix the problem reported, large features must pass some BVT or something similar. Any others have comments? --David