Actually, in order to commit, a review by a commiter makes sense. And not all commiters are qualified to sensibly review each commit. Me, for example.
Sean T Evans On Feb 19, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Arthus Erea <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
