On 04/02/2012, at 4:37 AM, AJ Lewis wrote: > > Definitely - just concerned that this model continues. Some of the talk > about taking all patches blindly and waiting for other contributers to > revert them makes me nervous.
The Benevolent Dictator has set strict standards: coding style, rules for process. Dictator doesn't want to be bogged down vetting patches. As one of my game playing friends said to me: "I don't want to be a foot soldier, I want to be a General" :) Have you heard of QA? I mean ISO Quality Control Standards. You probably know, these quality control measures involve: (a) a statement of commitment to quality (b) strict adherence to monitoring operations .. but have NOTHING to say about actual product quality. The idea is simply that there are ways to measure quality and they're applied, and there are ways to find out what caused a problem, no matter how it is discovered, and fix it. It's all about identification and tracking, as a tool for implementing the quality commitment. Here, Git does a lot of this work. Opening up the code base for patches should *increase* quality because it reduces the feedback time for contributions. Make a patch quicker .. and have people checking it out quicker too. IMHO the really big hole in he current setup is the lack of a substantial test base: regression tests, unit tests, integration tests, performance measurements. So I would stop feeling nervous about vetting of patches .. and start feeling nervous about the lack of test code :) -- john skaller skal...@users.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
