[email protected] said: > What specific suggestions do you have for improving the process? > (Demanding that all patches be rigorously inspected and tested by the > maintainers is not a reasonable, though specific, suggestion.)
Code review is in fact specifically what I am asking for. Every major FOSS project has a code review policy: Linux kernel: (see section 14), and elsewhere in this document: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.2.2/Documentation/SubmittingPatches Mozilla: http://www-archive.mozilla.org/hacking/code-review-faq.html Android: http://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html FreeBSD: (the best I could find, maybe the process is better documented elsewhere) http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/policies-maintainer.html The libzmq process as defined leaves no provision for code review whatsoever. I realise that code review is time consuming, costly, and often boring. If my suggestion is unreasonable due to the fact that the current maintainers are unpaid volunteers, then the real problem is elsewhere; the community should get its act together and: a) recruit a competent maintainer with domain expertise from within its ranks b) put in place a mechanism to fund such a maintainer -mato _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
