Hmmm... well shoot. If what I'm saying is an argument for gerrit, then I take it back. I don't like heavy processes. Keep it simple, work with good people.
Darren On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > > Well in the apache model committers are nominated. So basically we > should > > trust our committers. So I'm going to say we enforce this by having good > > discipline. In really not a fan of adding more process. In communities > where > > gerrit is used its usually done in a model where anybody can commit, so > > you're forced to have a rigid process. We should take nominating > committers > > seriously and committers should know best. > > Darren, > > I think you're actually malomg the argument for gerrit is the right > process for us. You're assuming ACS committership is granted based on code > but, in actuality, it is granted based on participation and a bit of code. > It's been discussed before. Given that, then it just makes sense that all > code contribution should be treated the same way with reviews. Gerrit is a > better way to implement this process than the review board. > > --Alex >
