Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.
idra at samba.org
Sat Oct 13 09:41:33 MDT 2012
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 09:06 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> 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.
Fine by me, I've been basically doing this except for the most trivial
patches for the past 2-3 years, so from my point of view I am well into
the trial, I have no problem prolonging it.
Are the -1ers also willing to do this starting now ?
(Now is a good moment because we are stabilizing samba4 for the final
release so we really want extra review anyway).
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical