[haiku-development] Re: [haiku-development] Commit access for Andreas Färber
- From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:23:34 +0200
On 2010-06-15 at 21:06:27 [+0200], Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2010-06-15 at 19:26:54 [+0200], Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On 2010-06-15 at 18:51:56 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > If you prefer to review all of his patches in a timely manner, I
> > > wouldn't object to this either, but I don't really see the point in
> > > keeping both of you busy for nothing.
> >
> > Nope, my point is exactly that I don't have the time and motivation to
> > review all patches in a timely manner, which is why the "commit first,
> > maybe review later" approach will probably result in a lot of code not
> > being reviewed throroughly at all. Unless you intend to do that, that is.
>
> So either way, you are blocking someone from becoming a new contributor. The
> kernel is critical, I agree, but you and Axel don't always make perfect
> commits either. For example, I am still seeing file corruption regularily,
> and initially the regressions after the pretty stable kernel of r32724 (?)
> were much worse. Everyone introduces regressions from time to time, it's all
> a work in progress. That's why I think it's not fair. IMHO Andreas has made
> every effort to show he would be a great team player and his work would have
> reasonable quality, at least. Gaining a regular contributor like him is IMHO
> more important than preventing occasional regressions even in critical
> components.
This isn't about regressions. This is simple about the standards committers
should fulfill. IMO a committer should be able to independently and
self-sufficiently work on his/her component of choice without needing to rely
on review by others. It is my opinion that this is not the case with Andreas
yet. Others might disagree with the latter (apparently Axel). Yet others seem
to believe in lower standards per se (you apparently).
> At the moment, Andreas' work wouldn't even affect the x86
> kernel.
That's not even true. There are already pending generic boot loader patches
and it is very likely that while working on the PPC port the
generic-architecture specific interface will need to be adjusted. Moreover --
and that already ails the partial architecture ports -- code duplication in
the different ports in not a good thing and should be reduced by refactoring
architecture independent code out of the x86 port.
> > > > Given that no one else seems to object, we
> > > > can save us the vote, I guess.
> > >
> > > Does that mean you're okay with it in the end?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Irritating how to procede from here. :-)
Everyone but me seems to want to give Andreas commit access now, and I don't
recall having any kind of veto right, so where's the problem?
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
