> What is "approved to contrib"? > > The problem here is that having reasonable certainty that a patch is > not malicious requires having gone over it in some detail; at which > point you might as well apply the thing. Or if you didn't apply it, > you bounced it for reasons that are unlikely to have anything to do > with needing more automated testing. > > ISTM this idea can only work if we have a "second tier" of reviewers > who are considered good enough to vet patches as safe, but not quite > good enough to certify them as commitable. I'm not seeing a large pool > of people volunteering to hold that position --- at best it'd be a > transitory state before attaining committerdom. If you are relying > on a constant large influx of new people, you are doomed to failure > (see "Ponzi scheme" for a counterexample). Yep. For the record, Ponzi died in poverty, so it's not a counter example, just proves that any gains that are had will be short lived and increase the size of the crash when crunch time comes. :) - Naz.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
