On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:
The real problems as I see it are
the quagga codebase is complicated and undercommented
there are proposed changes, but relatively few instances of deep,
thoughtful review and testing. I see far more proposed patches than
(other) people who have said that they've tested the patches in some
particular environment and found them to work. Or reviewed them to
the point that they are willing to be jointly responsible for
introduced bugs. There's certainly some, but I think we need about 4x
of that per propsed patch.
So I'd like to see
proposeed changes have initial patches to add remedial comments so
that the patch is reasoably reviewable, with the new comments
explaining why the code is how it is, and the commit messages
explaining why it's changing
more people really reviewing (well enough to spot bugs) and testing
Agreed on the above.
And I don't think any special status is necessary or helpful to this.
It isn't necessary, of itself, no.
My reasons for proposing that were mostly to try optimise for wetware.
So I think technical responsibility is already entirely open to the
wider community, and therefore I'm not in favor of your proposal.
Fair enough. :)
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.
-- Lily Tomlin
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
