On 10/10/2015 04:27 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> The side goal is to review current Gentoo commits for major QA >> violations and other issues, aiming at improving the quality of >> ebuilds in Gentoo and helping other developers using bash, ebuilds >> and git effectively. > > This is completely unrelated: since we've had gentoo-commits ml, > every one has been able to do commit reviews easily, and most devs have > done so. Self-proclamed reviewers project certainly does not have the > monopoly of best practices nor perfect knowledge. I hope they do keep > the monopoly of being harassing though :) >
We are not a subproject of the QA team and have no hats to throw around. Nothing we say is a "you must do this" statement. Only QA can do that. This is just a concept of peer-reviewing, which was very difficult in CVS times. The project isn't even strictly requried, but just an attempt to formalize this and maybe make other people do it too. > Also, you should probably focus on what's really important: reviews > like "this is weird, care to explain?" or stylistic nitpicks are just a > waste of every one time, meaning more important stuff does not get done. > 'has_version' (which you are probably referring to) as a conditional for sedding headers is more than just "weird" and indicates a serious build system bug that needs to be addressed properly. has_version also doesn't always work as someone might think it works. But I agree. We'll work on project policies in the next few days probably. But the scope will definitely not just be "build failures".
