On 4/7/19 1:14 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > As I said in another mail you are fighting windmills here. Given that we have > a mandatory CAA, that is where the gatekeepers come in anyway. > And the problems you claim here are also exiting there.
Signing the CAA isn't really imposing gatekeeping. First of all, it's a one time act, not something for every commit. Second, you can do it by yourself, at best your employer might stop you from signing (and then you could change jobs). And the person checking that the CAA is signed is really just acting as a secretary: there is no brain involved in that process, in theory it could be automated. So that's very, very different from gatekeeping IMO. > And regarding domain knowledge: It doesn't matter. Code review is more than > just functionality. It is QA. Florian's argument on capacity still holds here. And as I keep saying, to avoid mistakes, the best way is to automate the review, that's what CI is all about. And I'm sure about one thing: for certain types of issues, the CI will do a better job than me. And for the _rest_, we do have the gnunet-svn mailinglist which does generally work to provide post-merge feedback, which should suffice IMO.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
