I think this argument really encounters some dangerous thoughts. Not only are you saying that a review by a committer is needed, but you're saying that not all committers are allowed to provide such review.
Translation: Unless I or one of my pals approves of something, it's not part of Habari. On Feb 19, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Owen Winkler wrote: > > Arthus Erea wrote: >> >> On a theoretical level, patches should be reviewed in a timely >> manner. > > When people suggest bug hunts in the future, there should be a > commitment to supply the review and feedback you've suggested. > > This should not be an off-hand promise to merge a mangled branch > with a > weekend's worth of applied patches into trunk, often including new > features that non-committers try to railroad, not just bug fixes. It > should not be a babysitting session by a PMC designer/novice coder > with > commit access who just commits patches he's supplied that seem > functional. This wouldn't result in an adequate review, for your > personal purposes or for Habari. > > If a commitment to performing true reviews does not exist, then the > bug > hunt shouldn't happen. > > The hunting of bugs and committing of patches go hand in hand, and so > the scheduling of an event of this kind should account for both > actions, > not just one. > > Owen > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
