[csw-maintainers] Code and package reviews

[Philip Brown]

2011/6/13 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
> 2011/6/11 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>
>> (...)
>> If anything, this incident shows *more strongly*, the benefit of
>> having at least 2 humans carefully look at a package before release.
>>
>> The "new system" does not in any way ensure that.
>
> I expect that your position can be described as "the release manager
> position ensures that packages are always examined".

yes.


> Our aim is to build a culture in which peer review is one of the key
> elements.  There needs to be an environment which encourages peer
> reviews and makes them easy.
>....

you took the time to write a lot of things in your email. Thank you.
However,  while the things you wrote were "good", and "true"... they
still did not concretely address the issue :(
I think the rest of what you wrote, can be summed up, with a minor
insert, as follows:

> It is important that the senior members of the project actively
> participate in code and package reviews, serving as a good example to
> more junior members.
> [ So we **hope** that people will review packages]

This is exactly the problem that I see.
There have been a few people complaining about "lack of consistency"
with the current release process.
But how is a release strategy built around "hope", more consistent????



> While this strategy does not claim to "ensure that X number of humans
> will always do Y", it addresses the underlying issue of getting people
> involved in the release process and quality assurance through peer
> review.

It does not seem like it _adequately_ addresses the issue.
Providing people an optional mechanism to improve quality, does not
mean they will use it. "consistently".
Providing people an optional mechanism to "get involved", does not
mean they *will* get involved.

Some people.. including *you* Maciej... keep pressing the claims that
everything should be automated, for "consistency".
So why are you not automating a 2nd party validation check?