-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and > the number of monkeys who have commit access?
Yes I've read those rants, among others.. :) But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how to increase quality by default? > Problem is, getting decent > QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult So why not build peer review into the process/policy? Require that the team leads (who could deligate as they see fit) perform verification (peer review) before closing out bugs. > -- the > kind of people who won't accept QA feedback are usually the kind who > are making the worst mistakes. The maintainer-wanted list is simply an > easier target... True; being a premadonna isn't pretty or helpful to the project, but I bet alot of it is due to bad expectations. There seems to be a vocal minority of devs who equate being a dev with a God-like status. "How dare you question me or my work?!?" And it would make sense that the new devs would pick up on that as a way to 'fit in'. So how can we set better expectations for new devs up front? Update the dev policy docs?: - - Expect to have your work peer reviewed at all times - - Realise that peer reviews are intended to improve the code not evaluate dev performance Ideas? Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBe572QTTR4CNEQARAtYpAJ0aZ4gnfyE4lTUrbYr/DcWmIUX67ACghyvl TTCM9mWVTkuUWm33WnSeE9A= =gE1q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
