On 10/10/2015 05:34 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > It is no secret that I don't care about "hats" :) > If someone is right, he's right, a QA hat doesn't make something wrong > magically right. Also, if you'd ask me, QA should be more about Quality > Assurance, meaning training people, writing docs, fixing trivial > stuff, helping devs to improve; which implies reviewer project fits > perfectly. "you must do this" statements shouldn't even be needed, and > are completely useless in a volunteer-based project anyway :) >
QA has the right to remove commit access, so I'm not sure I agree. But I certainly don't think this is anything important for the Reviewers project, since the goal is not to remove peoples commit access, but to teach each other. So I also don't see why we should be affiliated with the QA project. Since the only difference would be that said power, which I am not interested in. In addition, conflicting projects are explicitly allowed in Gentoo as per GLEP 39, see https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:39#Specification >> This is just a concept of peer-reviewing, which was very difficult in >> CVS times. > > I fail to see how post-commit reviews are made easier with git. > Quite offtopic, but we could discuss this off-list if you want. > [...] >>> 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. > > It indicates a conditional fix. Just as the code says. It's a hack, not a fix. And as such, it is worth discussing. > Before throwing > an email to -dev ml, I would have expected a reviewer to do his homework > and try to understand what the condition is, when it will be satisfied, > and why this was conditional. There is absolutely nothing wrong about > not knowing the answer, but using -dev ml for it is a bit spammy IMHO. > I did have a look. I was checking both packages (dev-libs/libcdio and dev-libs/libcdio-paranoia) for the header and made up my own mind about this. I was still wondering if the maintainer even knows what this is about. So, maybe you should be more careful with throwing accusations around if people did their homework or not ;) And that is certainly something the reviewers will not do. For any given review, it will be irrelevant who wrote the code.
