On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Jason House wrote: > > I wasn't suggesting anything other than 'less code revew' isn't a solution > > that's in our best interest. > > > > If you want my opinion, Walter shouldn't be writing code unless the review > > queue is empty. It's harsh, but it'd net us far better throughput of > > fixes and keep the contributors contributing. We loose contributors and > > constrict their contribution rate by not allowing work to flow into the > > tree. > > > > With increased throughput and increased contributors, they'd be in a > > better position to also review either others code, making the need for > > Walter to be the reviewer lower. > > > > Lastly, as part of the code review, Walter needs to stop running the > > tests. That's what the pull auto tester is for. Look at the code, > > comment where not ready, merge where ready. > > > > Later, > > Brad > > I'm not particularly familiar with Linux kernel development, but my > understanding is that smaller commits are aggregated by select helpers, > and then the larger changsets are merged by the BDFL. Maybe something > similar would work for DMD?
The key difference is that the helpers in the linux world are _deep_ experts in the parts they aggregate. Currently the only person that qualifies w/in the D community is Don for the CTFE parts of dmd. _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
