[development] Very concerned over Drupal's core development
merlin at logrus.com
Mon Apr 20 18:44:27 UTC 2009
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
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
Give your reviewers some ownership and you'll find a lot more people
interested in reviewing.
More information about the development