On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:09 AM Luca Beltrame <lbeltr...@kde.org> wrote: > > In data giovedì 28 marzo 2019 09:50:47 CET, Kevin Ottens ha scritto: > > I'd argue we're loosing more with the current state of PIM than we'd loose > > with mandatory reviews. > > Perhaps, instead of an all-or-nothing approach, why not a minimal set of > "requirements" that would require a review? Yes, it requires more discipline > from those involved, but at least it will help people getting "ingrained" with > the concept without being a wall. > > Examples: > > - No review: typo fixes, compile errors, version bumps (internal) > - Review: build system adjustments (perhaps CC some people knowledgeable in > this case), non-trivial changes like patches > - "Deprecation" removals (as in the casus belli here) - review if touching > more than a handful of files / multiple repos > > (list made by someone who has a passing knowledge of C++, so feel free to rip > me to shreds) > > Pre-commit CI (i.e. once the switch to GitLab occurs) and perhaps direct > mailing to the user (as I suggested earlier) in case of continuous failures > will also help. > > If this thing works, one can gradually ramp up the requirements of things that > go through review when the "muscle memory" is formed.
The problem is that a git comit is a git commit, there's no way that a typo will be treated differently then another commit. I strongly advocate for "reviews always", but since I was outvoted a few times on this I would at least say "can we at least have reviews for non project members" ? > -- > Luca Beltrame > GPG key ID: A29D259B