> But maybe, just maybe, if the community can get its act together to > support a "codereview" type approach, we can ask Coraid to sponsor the > minimum resources required by it. I don't have a clue to the details, > but I would be thrilled to contribute.
i think you're suggesting using some sort of corporate sponsorship as an implicit endorsement. endorsements are for polititians. :-) 9front does have a lightly used review system. all 9atom patches are submitted through apatch, and all apatches are sent to sources klammeraffe 9atom punkt org. apatch/note can be used by anyone to post comments about a patch. these comments are sent to the list. 9atom is currently single committer, with the possibility of delegation (like linux). i'd love to delegate parts of the system. if you want to bend or replace apatch to your wishes, i'm all for it. but i won't accept dependencies on python or external web sites(see postscript) > (1) Bell Labs are lagging behind 9atom and 9front in support for a lot > of hardware (old and new), a situation that, by getting progressively > worse may cause them to drop out of the race altogether and (2) The > amount of effort and ego bashing required to bring the different > releases in line is considerable and no one is likely to take such a > mission on without knowing that, at minimum, the "owners" of the > various distributions are willingly supportive of such efforts. for what it's worth, i review all the changes made to plan 9 and 9front and apply what makes sense. david actually has a script that automaticly packages any changes to sources and creates a 9atom patch. many thanks to him. - erik p.s. i am not using codereview for two reasons. 1. codereview might be neat, but for me it brings all the baggage of hg, but most of the good bits are left out 2. i don't want to depend on mercurial, hg, and google's good graces. (good grief.) plan 9 is currently self-sufficient, and for me this is a first-class goal.
