I agree, if it can help to avoid this kind of endless discussion.
:-/. Yes, a good point.
But to me, it makes the project less friendly if people have no trust to each other for the most basic and obvious improvements. I am not talking about controversial or complicated fixes. But doc addition, build-sys, cleaning, spelling: this all qualifies to something that is an obvious improvement that I can trust people who have commit access to do the right call. This is to me more healthy than having to bother and wait for each other through a mailing list. It also allows to prioritize, trivial things shouldn't be at the same level as critical bug fix or protocol changes.
I don't think it's about trust. In my mind, it's about simplicity and
rigor. If every patch requires two reviews, that's easy to understand
and sets clear expectations.
Anything else is subjective, which can lead to anger.
I have screwed up so many times in the past, and it always seems my
biggest goofs are when I'm at my most confident. So I am always
grateful for a review, and I like the ideal that every patch, no matter
how small, is reviewed by at least two people.
I am first a GNOME developper, where anyone can push changes without review. This is based on a trust and meritocratic relationship too, and I like it, and afaik it works well. In fact, most projects I know follow that rule. It makes sense to me that maintainers and main contributors can decide to push changes without bothering and waiting on others. It will be looked over by other people anyway. If they don't, they should try to keep looking at recent changes. Because we are not self contain project, we need to do that anyway for many other projects we depend on. But there is no need to force people to check and review every single minor improvements. There are more important pieces of our stack where changes can go without review (all of them?).
My instincts come from Wine, Xorg, and Linux. I believe Xorg is trying
for a rigorous signed off by / reviewed by policy, similar to what the
Kernel strives for. Wine is more dictatorial; everything is reviewed by
at least two people, unless it's Alexandre's work :-/.
I think this rule should be left to the maintainer, and as a maintainer of some of the Spice project, I prefer to have a trustful relationship and let people commit directly. It's really not much, if the change is wrong, it can be reverted, not a big deal.
I'm espousing an ideal. It may be that practical realities of patch
flow, and review bandwidth make my ideal undesirable for Spice.
And I think the people with the most credibility in this conversation
are the maintainers who do a great deal of patch review. That's not me;
so I don't think I deserve a particularly large 'vote'.
Cheers,
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel