Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Earl Miles schrieb:
Angela Byron wrote:
We have this kind of decentralized development model, where one or two people are solely responsible for code with basically zero peer review. It's called contrib. And it's notoriously filled with sub-standard, shoddily documented code that needs to be closely inspected by individual site maintainers before being deployed on any serious production sites. I stop following your argument here. The only way this argument holds up is that if *all* of contrib is substandard crap. It is not. There is a level of contrib that is above that, and there is a reason those particular pieces of contrib are above that. Chew on that.
Because they follow core's development model?
They don't, actually, or at least, mine don't. I don't post patches and have half a dozen people review them before I commit code. If someone posts a patch, chances are there's only 1 or 2 reviews on it, and I have to do the real review prior to deciding whether or not to commit it. Sometimes some patch will be both simple enough and important enough for more than a couple people to review it, but that is the exception, not the rule. Right now, it's because I try to hold myself to a high standard. And I admit that I can be sloppy and commit too fast due to the workload, but ultimately even with that I do a better job than a lot of contrib, simply because I try to see the bigger picture prior to committing. The reason I think more committers in targeted areas will work is because I think it will create more activity in those areas. The people who have the right to commit will have a more vested interest, and therefore you will get more of their time, effort and energy, plus any that they can draw to them. webchick commented earlier that one of the issues was providing an incentive to do reviews. And that's certainly a key issue, right there. There isn't much incentive to do reviews. There's the good of the project, but there is no pride of ownership in a review. The pride of ownership drives a lot of the initial development, and it drives the committers, but the reviewers? I cannot remember a time in the 4 years I've been with this project that we haven't had a longstanding complaint about lack of good patch reviews. That is one of the first complaints I heard then, and it is one of the complaints I hear now. It has not changed, and asking people to do more reviews has already proven to be ineffective in combatting the issue. Give your reviewers some ownership and you'll find a lot more people interested in reviewing.