|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Git/gerrit migration status and next stepsRe: Git/gerrit migration status and next steps
From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:08:52 +1000 On 7 September 2011 21:02, Nils Wallménius <nils.wallmenius_at_gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Martitz <kugel_at_rockbox.org> wrote: >> Am 07.09.2011 10:29, schrieb Nils Wallménius: >>> >>> I think it could be interesting to test it actually. >>> >>> >> >> Testing it will probably show that it works in the beginning, but it will >> not show that this way degrades to clicking away commits like ads (without >> even looking) in the long (or even short) term. >> >> We can't force people to actually review. And we can't force them to do it >> properly. This way has no hope of working as intended. >> >> What it may work for is to open the ability to point at someone else for >> every controversial/bad/unwanted commit. This even reduces the motivation to >> review (and to work on Rockbox in general). >> >> Best regards. >> > > That's the whole point of a test, to see how it works out, you seem > certain that it *can't* work which i find overly negative. Of course > we can't force people to do anything but i think this will encourage > people to review, if it turns out it doesn't work, we disable it. > > I don't see why people have focused on the "blame-sharing" as someone > called it in IRC how many commits do we get that are actually bad? > > Anyway, i agree with Torne about taking one step at a time. > > Nils > > I honestly have no idea how the whole blame shareing thing happened either. anyone who does software engineering should know that "review" means implementation review and not feautre review. I also mentioned it now because it is a valuable thing to talk about, I gess I should use an alias now seen as obviously everything I suggest is so unbeleivably wrong! Received on 2011-09-07 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |