On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:03:34 +0100 Marcel Partap <mpartap@gmx.net> wrote:
To Marcel: The stifle innovation argument is valid although you've called it invalid several times. You have proposed that 10 (not high profile) developer reviews would be required in order to commit code. Assuming you mean what you say and the overloaded developers (high profile) don't have an increased workload, then that means i need 10 reviews to get my code committed. No that was not exactly what i proposed. The proposal (!) was to have a patch get autocommitted (if style checks run fine and no tests break) by a bot after receiving 10 RTBC vote 'points' and no veto status. The fact that needs to be taken into account here is the level of coding skills and experience of the reviewing person, f.e. by giving people like merlinofchaos chx dries karens etc. (i.e. who have proven to be capable working even on especially complex code) a voting weight of 10 (or 9 maybe.. or whatever) to allow for quicker commital. That'd of course be an arbitrary decision - i'm sure though we could come up with something that worked.
I prefer push approach for this kind of stuff rather than pull. In fact I proposed a feed for just getting changes to docs, api etc... I sincerely don't feel comfort with the drupal project infrastructure. It may be my ignorance or maybe "eat your own dog food" works to some extent but is not a commandment. Anyway I think you could obtain a similar effect subscribing to the feeds of issue queues. Still I don't feel the review score system is going to work for contrib.
I like mailing lists. Wine-patches is just great for watching code that passes by. It'd be really useful as a tool by itself imho, although those other options already exist. You have to agree there is a slight but notable difference in actively subscribing/seeking something or passively get pushed the new code to your inbox.
That's different from imposing review scores on contrib. -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it