To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File naming conventions
References: <20041019060152.GC18852@wisq.net>
	<1098311382.11967.35.camel@nemesis.xlii.org>
	<1098313564.5336.29.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<vpqmzyhhrhi.fsf@ecrins.imag.fr>
	<1098319598.5336.46.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<20041021123218.GA30989@fencepost>
	<1098398014.5336.118.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<BF588F2C-23C1-11D9-86E4-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
	<buo7jpjk21o.fsf@mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
	<200410252034.i9PKYK4b066494@xl2.seyza.com>
	<20041025225439.GB19336@fencepost>
	<200410272159.i9RLxInD074896@xl2.seyza.com>
Organization: The XEmacs Project
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:34:56 +0900
In-Reply-To: <200410272159.i9RLxInD074896@xl2.seyza.com> (Thomas Lord's
	message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:59:18 -0700 (PDT)")
Message-ID: <874qkf3r0f.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.5 (chayote, linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org, zen@cashpoolcomps.com, dustin@spy.net,
        miles@gnu.org
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2353
Lines: 50
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:

    Thomas> The best way I can think of, right now, to make the job of
    Thomas> our singular reviewer/integrator (Matthew) easier is to
    Thomas> ask contributors to be very strict and formal about the
    Thomas> format and management of their submissions.

It's a rather different situation, but Martin van Löwis of Python
recently reiterated his offer to review, and if appropriate commit,
any patch being "pushed" by a developer who reviews ten (10) patches
to a certain standard.  (Note that "review" means two different things
here: Martin's review is part of the integration process; the
"pusher's" review is simply a report that Martin or another Python
integrator might find useful.)

    Thomas> He certainly shouldn't have to spend an hour resolving
    Thomas> trivial conflicts that arose because the submitter hasn't
    Thomas> updated his submission for three weeks.

One of the advantages of the van Löwis scheme is that third parties
have an incentive to pick up some of that load, which (a) takes that
burden off the integrator(s) and (b) signals the contributor that
there are people willing to back his patch with real resources---which
is a lot of encouragement to do the upkeep himself.

Especially if the report is "This patch is unreviewable as is because
it doesn't merge".  It's one thing if MD rejects because it didn't
merge---the contributor is going to feel (even if he doesn't dare say)
"well, if you'd get the fsckin' lead out, the patch would have been
reviewed while it was still current, how was I supposed to know?"  But
if a third party publically makes such a report, then the contributor
has no excuse.

Another advantage is that it gets people writing reviews, which you
can use to review the reviewers as potential candidates for integrator.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/