[SCM] Samba Shared Repository - branch master updated
obnox at samba.org
Thu Sep 12 10:06:50 CEST 2013
On 2013-09-12 at 06:43 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> On 11/09/13 22:37, Michael Adam wrote:
> >On 2013-09-11 at 10:18 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> >>On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> >>Gna. Pushed from the wrong tree. This was meant to carry
> >>Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> tags.
> >This would not have happened, if we had installed a
> >mechanism that would reject a push if one at least of
> >the commits does not contain at least two signoff/review
> >tags by team members... (Hint, hint... ;-)
> If that was to check if I was still reading this list, I am. :)
> And my opinion on this is the same as it was the last time we
> discussed this. Unless of course we invite
> nobody.gave.adamn at samba.org into the team to do reviews. ;)
Hm, doing a little analysis on our last commits...
Since commit 9e7bce53707732700928eaf2bb53a5f1cc5d7784
which was on 2012-10-19, and was the first commit to
be pushed under the new proposed reviewed-by/signed-off-by
rules, we have:
- a total of 2772 commits
- Signed-off-by: 1995 tags by 24 different team members
- Reviewed-by: 2771 tags by 25 different team members
So your impression that nobody cares does not seem to be justified.
Of course this slows things down. Doing thorough reviews
takes time. But the resulting patches are almost always
much better and don't need to be amended afterwards as much
as before. So that's worth the pain, imho.
Do you have any patches out there pending review? (as most of
us do, btw) Then just ping again. Doesn't that work?
Of course, reviews are not designed for the impatient. ;-)
Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 215 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the samba-technical