On 09/15/2010 09:13 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > i do - because i actually do have some level of patches that end up in queues > (for people without svn access) and they eat up quite a bit of time. even for > the few that are around and even for fairly superficial review.
Big patches are bad, you should reject them. If you encourage people to submit patch sequences, the review load should be much lighter. e.g. (PATCH 1-10/10) You're also assuming that you have to do the review. If you don't have time, why not appoint/request somebody else to do it? >>> review doesn't just magically catch all bugs. >> It magically catches 80% of bugs, which is a good start. >> >> How about having patches at least verified by a buildbot before they're >> commited? > > that's the job of the committer to at least have built the src first and run > and tested it. if devs consistently commit patches that dont even build or > work > in the most basic way then they probably should have svn access revoked. this > isnt a technical issue - it's a human issue. to be solved the human way - > spank > them a few times and eventually kick them out. Everybody makes mistakes. Having at least a basic sanity check on what's committed would improve the quality of SVN quite a bit IMO. I'm wonder if there's any other successful projects out there that have 50+ commiters, and zero review of patches before they go in... thanks, Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
