Hi, (Sorry for top-posting)
I fear that a mandatory reviews would add too juch strain on smaller teams. If there's just one person with an intimate knowledge of the code-base, plus two co-developers, then who should do the reviews? How about a distinction based on importance of a project instead? I.e. mandatory reviews for frameworks and any app that wants to be included in KDE apps releases. Non-mandatory reviews can then also come with a "price" to pay: if CI errors are not dealt with in a timely manner, you should be free to disable the CI for administrative reasons... Johannes Am 28. März 2019 10:17:18 MEZ schrieb Tomaz Canabrava <tcanabr...@kde.org>: >On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:09 AM Luca Beltrame <lbeltr...@kde.org> >wrote: >> >> In data giovedì 28 marzo 2019 09:50:47 CET, Kevin Ottens ha scritto: >> > I'd argue we're loosing more with the current state of PIM than >we'd loose >> > with mandatory reviews. >> >> Perhaps, instead of an all-or-nothing approach, why not a minimal set >of >> "requirements" that would require a review? Yes, it requires more >discipline >> from those involved, but at least it will help people getting >"ingrained" with >> the concept without being a wall. >> >> Examples: >> >> - No review: typo fixes, compile errors, version bumps (internal) >> - Review: build system adjustments (perhaps CC some people >knowledgeable in >> this case), non-trivial changes like patches >> - "Deprecation" removals (as in the casus belli here) - review if >touching >> more than a handful of files / multiple repos >> >> (list made by someone who has a passing knowledge of C++, so feel >free to rip >> me to shreds) >> >> Pre-commit CI (i.e. once the switch to GitLab occurs) and perhaps >direct >> mailing to the user (as I suggested earlier) in case of continuous >failures >> will also help. >> >> If this thing works, one can gradually ramp up the requirements of >things that >> go through review when the "muscle memory" is formed. > >The problem is that a git comit is a git commit, there's no way that a >typo will be treated differently then another commit. >I strongly advocate for "reviews always", but since I was outvoted a >few times on this I would at least say "can we at least have reviews >for non project members" ? > > >> -- >> Luca Beltrame >> GPG key ID: A29D259B