I've got into at least two exceptions lately. They made me skeptic. --Sheng
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > > And it's also my fault on this issue because I didn't look at the patch > > when it's in reviewboard. I was not that diligent at reviewboard > before... > > > > To prevent the same thing happen again, we may want to do something like > > xxx area's code need to be reviewed by xxx, xxx, xxx in the future? > > We have something like this: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maintainers+Per+Component > > That said, individuals shouldn't really be SPOF in the process. We > already have a hard enough time getting patches reviewed as it is; > adding more complexity or requirements isn't a good idea IMO. If you > want the chunk of CloudStack that you care about to be well reviewed > and high quality, that's easy to effect by simply being engaged and > looking at the code being proposed for review (and code committed > directly by other committers). But I can't imagine us adding a > requirement that you need sign off of a small subset of committers. In > practice I think most people don't commit code in areas they aren't > familiar with - occasionally we run into a bug because a reviewer > missed something, but I think that's the exception rather than the > rule. > > --David >
