In data giovedì 28 marzo 2019 16:04:01 CET, Boudhayan Gupta ha scritto: > I don't get why mandatory code reviews are so unpopular.
It's not "unpopular". As far as the discussion goes, the opinions (from several parties) say that they're not a silver bullet, and that some projects benefit from them more than others. The ultimate solution is actually more developers (yeah, I know, easy...). CI, OTOH, has been IMO very useful (despite the headaches Ben mentions) for all the projects in KDE. > I don't care if you lose time. I don't want the guys building my house to You should if the review stays there for years when there's no one else to review it. > As a user, I simply do not want unreviewed crap running on my computer. Well, reviews help but they're just part of the equation. CI helps as well (and IMO, it should be more visible as I mentioned earlier in the thread). And perfectly reviewed code (as well as unreviewed code) can still be a problem (as an integrator, I see that often). > one-liners, you're probably too overconfident to be writing good code > anyway, so I'm going to operate on the presumption that if the code hasn't > had more than one pair of eyeballs ever looking at it, it's crap. I would say that there's no need to be like this. There is bound to be disagreement (and there is) but not as much as to define quality on assumptions. To be clear: I'm neither on the side of "review all the things" nor on the anarchist side. I just want to make sure we don't engage in policies that can be (potentially, just potentially) harmful for some parts of KDE (while they are perfectly OK for others). -- Luca Beltrame GPG key ID: A29D259B
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
