Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.
abartlet at samba.org
Sun Oct 14 15:38:06 MDT 2012
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 17:48 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> > Why can't we take it a step at a time, committing for example to have
> > all substantive changes on the list for 3 days (or until reviewed), but
> > without rules on author != committer. This will encourage review
> > without creating in one step the level of extra work and dislocation
> > this proposal entails.
> Hmm, we could also do this. But why not try the full featured
> model directly. If it should really turn out to be unberable
> we would re-discuss after a certain period.
Because I can't be certain that after this, I'll even have the energy to
start yet another multi-day, multiple-tens-of-message thread to try and
help others understand why I feel it's not working.
Given how certain everyone is that the trail will be successful before
it even starts, I do not feel confident I'll get a fair hearing.
Why not come back with tool support, documentation, those most
interested opting in to trial the tools, and a genuine trial with
measured outcomes (where it isn't pre-ordained that the trail will
Otherwise, this isn't a trial, this is a new rule in the guise of a
I tried to give an example of how that could work in my other mail. The
subtle details of the language really does matter - yet if this is as
wildly successful as you so certainly believe it will be, both would end
up in the same place, but with far, far less aggravation.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
More information about the samba-technical