From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O5zUK-0000xc-8U for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:55:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B082DE084D; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:54:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.141]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965BFE081B for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:54:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O5zUB-0006rG-UX for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:54:52 +0000 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:54:44 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4BD32D26.5090005@gentoo.org> (from betelgeuse@gentoo.org on Sat Apr 24 18:40:54 2010) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.7 Message-Id: <1272192891.3239.0@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="=-HZAwkdM9Duk5nOizB+ay" X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: 16b831c0-b09e-4d5c-93aa-d7dbe702481f X-Archives-Hash: 9ae501b488c5643ab228257cee113889 --=-HZAwkdM9Duk5nOizB+ay Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2010.04.24 18:40, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > 17:34 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: how easy to it to prevent commits to > CVS > if the commit message doesn't match a certain pattern? > 17:36 <@robbat2|na> go and checkout the CVSROOT and there should be=20 > an > example there > 17:37 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: Ok so doable then. Thanks. >=20 > What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without > mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the=20 > diff > in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent > stuff too. >=20 > Regards, > Petteri >=20 >=20 In industry, the practice is called peer review. Its generally thought=20 to be a GoodThing as its part of the process of trapping errors as=20 early as possible in the process, where they have lowest cost. We cannot easily attribute cost in terms of money, so think about it in=20 developer and user hours wasted as errors 'escape'. Industry also recognises the need that any process needs to be tailored=20 to the circumstance so the peer review process is not enforced. Project=20 groups are permitted to assess the risk of screwing up against the cost=20 of a fix. (That's overly simplistic). In short, following industry best practice, the peer review process=20 should be strongly encouraged but we should stop short of using tools=20 to enforce it. --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees --=-HZAwkdM9Duk5nOizB+ay Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkvUH3sACgkQTE4/y7nJvasELQCeIVWYhWK+48yE21hkfGjTBqqZ fPcAoJZsLqiCW6lTQzQGI90HGbPIt44u =EKci -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-HZAwkdM9Duk5nOizB+ay--