> -----Original Message----- > From: spacewalk-devel-boun...@redhat.com > [mailto:spacewalk-devel-boun...@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Herr > Sent: 30 January 2014 13:33 > To: spacewalk-devel@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-devel] On quality of patches > > On 01/30/2014 07:32 AM, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. wrote: > > > > I fully agree with you that this is not acceptable. > > > > Now, I think your diagnostic is IMHO neither fair or correct. This > > does not have to do with the "community contributions" but with the > > setup of the project itself. > > We sometimes have sent patches that are very strictly reviewed, > > sometimes needing change multiple times to get a reviewer happy. > > > > Then next day our internal testsuite fails only to realize that > > someone with direct commit access did a big refactoring and committed > > very broken code in a big patch that was not reviewed by anyone and > > which quality was also obviously not the best. We asked ourselves, > > what is the point of reviewing "some of them"?. Not only code but > > also design decisions and way of approaching solutions. > > > > Sometimes this happens with our own patches, depending on the > > reviewer, they may get committed faster. > > > > The setup of the review process is broken. > > > > - All code should be committed in similar units (features/branches) > > - All code should be able to be reviewed and vetoed by everyone > > > > OpenStack has this model working quite successfully. Every patch is > > reviewed with +1, and they need a certain amounts of ACKS to get > > committed. Everyone can review and people learn in the process, and > > it is a great source of inspiration for other projects. > > For what it's worth I agree with Duncan. I think that having > a consistent process requiring multiple reviews for all > changes could only improve code quality and make Spacewalk > more accessible to community contributors. The process Duncan > describes is very common among modern open source projects > and seems to work well. > > -Stpehen >
I can't agree more with Duncan on this (at least one Duncan talks sense!). Duncan This message has been checked for viruses and spam by the Virgin Money email scanning system powered by Messagelabs. This e-mail is intended to be confidential to the recipient. If you receive a copy in error, please inform the sender and then delete this message. Virgin Money plc - Registered in England and Wales (Company no. 6952311). Registered office - Jubilee House, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 4PL. Virgin Money plc is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. The following companies also trade as Virgin Money. They are both authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, are registered in England and Wales and have their registered office at Jubilee House, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 4PL: Virgin Money Personal Financial Service Limited (Company no. 3072766) and Virgin Money Unit Trust Managers Limited (Company no. 3000482). For further details of Virgin Money group companies please visit our website at virginmoney.com _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
