-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:36:43 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs > | with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how > | to increase quality by default? > > I am doing. I'm doing it by trying to improve the documentation and the > entry requirements for new developers. > > | > Problem is, getting decent > | > QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult > | > | So why not build peer review into the process/policy? Require that the > | team leads (who could deligate as they see fit) perform verification > | (peer review) before closing out bugs. > > Because that won't help in the slightest. >
So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things by default is bad? Explain? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBn8e2QTTR4CNEQARAqaHAJ9erzzbR6qac8px3g+Ii4mI2nuBmQCeKW78 uVVAdNgFYoXpTaI7z5FxDsg= =iZAz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
