On 19/01/15 16:47, hasufell wrote:
I think you forgot an important point:
* lack of practical QA: no review workflow and no appropriate tools for
reviewing
I could start a long text block about why reviewing is mandatory for QA,
but let's just think about it this way:
What do you think would happen if the linux kernel switched to CVS and
gave the most active 250 collaborators direct push access to the main
Linus repository?
I hope greg k-h does not read this. He'd probably get a heart attack.
Also: people seem to think we don't have enough manpower for a review
workflow. No, it's really the other way around. If you make
collaboration difficult, then you need a lot more manpower.
I already pointed out that there are _not_ good review tools. There are
not for a by-email workflow we have in Libav, there aren't really for a
tool-mediated workflow we could have in Gentoo.
I have no problems in devoting some time on preparing a tool suited for
our purpose (once we switch to git), but I'd need more volunteers to
help me with it.
lu
