On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300 Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it > > through cvs? No thanks. I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a > > spelling mistake. :P > > How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review > system should reduce having them in the first place. People make mistakes. Anyways my point is that requiring a peer review for trivial changes is just unneeded bureaucracy. Even for non-trivial changes, it doesn't make sense to force someone who knows their eclass inside out and knows what they're doing to get a review from someone else who may not have a clue. I'm not saying that peer-review shouldn't be done; it's a very good idea, especially if you're new, or unsure of your changes, or you have a team consisting of more than one person. In fact I would support a policy that said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing. But enforcing it through cvs is never going to fly. Just use common sense. If we were having ongoing issues with people breaking eclasses then I could see where you're coming from. But as it is, it's a non-problem. -- fonts, by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
