Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.

[Kai Blin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-10-13 04:23, simo wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 02:23 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
>> On 2012-10-13 01:13, Michael Adam wrote:
>> 
>>> comments: * I don't yet understand the reasons for "-1"s
>> 
>> My reason for a -1, as I've tried to explain on both my mail and
>> on IRC is that I'd like to try this out first, just like we did
>> for autobuild. Jeremy however proposes a policy change now, and
>> says if we don't like it later, we can try to get another policy
>> change done. That's not what trying things out should look like. 
>> Apparently that makes me opposed to progress, but I can live with
>> that.
> 
> Hi Kai, can you explain what 'try it out' means in this case ?

To quote from my previous mail:

"""
The way I see a trial working was that everybody tries to do reviews
on patches sent to samba-technical, and everybody agrees to not push
code directly. Basically, we do whatever the initial proposal was,
without actually having it as a rule. And then, once we tried it for a
while, we have a vote on whether we want to make the system mandatory.
"""

Jeremy said on IRC that he doesn't believe this is going to work, but
it's still how I'd prefer this would be handled.

Cheers,
Kai

- -- 
Kai Blin
Worldforge developer http://www.worldforge.org/
Wine developer http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin
Samba team member http://www.samba.org/samba/team/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB5Eu4ACgkQEKXX/bF2FpRREQCgmWaDjcKlhWVrpXSWsA4IwOjm
NvAAoKTBCUpDdBDJc1UYwGppv3qQDxnT
=GcTE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----