On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:13:18AM -0700, John Plocher wrote: > We don't do process crap just for the sake of doing process crap. > We do it because of the benefits and value such review provides. > The converse of this is also important - if our processes stop > adding value, the processes are broken and need to be fixed or > replaced - or even abandoned, if they can't be fixed.
But this presupposes a shared set of values we use in making that determination. Historically, we've had a pretty solid agreement on what our values were. That no longer appears accurate. For example, I assert that integration adds value but mere aggregation, generally, does not. Most of this discussion centers around projects that are mere aggregation. If you assert that these projects add value and I assert that they nearly always subtract it, how are we to agree on appropriate process? For me, it would be entirely appropriate to require full code review of all source being integrated, regardless of its origins, and that it be integrated into OpenSolaris by making it utilise existing functionality (not adding redundant infrastructure) and adhering to the same set of best practices we would apply to our own code. For you, that would be unacceptable as it would hinder the kind of aggregation you believe adds value. The only thing we seem to agree on is that the process needs to match the goals. But as long as there is a fundamental disagreement on those underlying values, any process will always seem to some to be hopelessly broken. The best opportunity for compromise was offered by the Companion consolidation, which could have been used as a vehicle for unfettered aggregation of arbitrary (and arbitrarily toxic and badly-integrated) software, while the other consolidations continued using strict quality-focused processes. But that opportunity has been lost and the push to make everything look more like what the Companion used to be suggests that many believe this disagreement has been resolved in favour of the populist position that more putbacks = better. It would be useful to know whether that's the position of the ARC and the C-teams. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Fishworks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
