On 04/26/2010 01:42 AM, Alistair Bush wrote: >> On 04/24/2010 09:14 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300 >>> >>> Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> 17:34 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: how easy to it to prevent commits to >>>> CVS if the commit message doesn't match a certain pattern? >>>> 17:36 <@robbat2|na> go and checkout the CVSROOT and there should be an >>>> example there >>>> 17:37 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: Ok so doable then. Thanks. >>>> >>>> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without >>>> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the diff >>>> in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent >>>> stuff too. >>> >>> no thanks; we already have the policy to require that major changes to >>> broad impact eclasses have gone through -dev, no need to add more >>> bureaucracy. >> >> But the policy is not tested by the quizzes and we have had cases lately >> where large diffs have been committed without gentoo-dev review. With >> peer review it's likely that the reviewer is familiar with what should >> be sent to gentoo-dev as hesitant/new people won't give their approval >> that easily. > > 1) Why is it of any relevance whether or not the quizzes test this policy?
I doubt recruits read all of our documentation while answering the quizzes. This would just enforce behavior. > 2) Where is this policy recorded, and why does devmanual.g.o seem to > (possibly) contradict it? [1] I'm not sure of the nature of the commits but > were they non-general? > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html "Before updating eutils or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to email the gentoo-dev list." > > [1] "It is not usually necessary to email the gentoo-dev list before making > changes to a non-general eclass which you maintain. Use common sense here." Yeah it's not spelled that clearly there. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
