Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Git/gerrit migration status and next steps
Re: 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.
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