On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 23:08 +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jonathon Jongsma <jjong...@redhat.com> wrote: > > For what it's worth, I basically agree with Christophe and Jeremy. > > (Although I think that describing it as "mandatory code review" is > > over-stating the case a bit -- there is nothing but peer pressure and > > polite requests preventing contributors from pushing unreviewed code). > > Peer pressure is precisely what one should try to avoid. If you think > your change does not require second look, because it is trivial, then > why would you do it? Now you will have to bother others repeatedly for > the most basic thing that they might not even care about. I would > rather work differently as I explained before, and as we did until > now. >
By "peer pressure", I simply mean the expectations that are shared by contributors of the project. And I think that some set of shared expectations are essential in a well-functioning project. So I disagree that "peer pressure" is something that should always be avoided. If somebody violates the shared expectations of the project, there *should* be some pressure to either stop violating those expectations, or re-negotiate a new set of shared expectations. Which is basically what we're doing now, right? Jonathon _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
