[csw-maintainers] Code and package reviews

[Maciej Bliziński]

I've received a complaint for mixing technical and non-technical
issues in one email.  Sorry about that.  Here's the amended version of
the email.

2011/6/13 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
> 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????

Let's consider three separate issues:

1. Package review
2. Policy development
3. Policy enforcement

The inconsistency that the proposal refers to, and attempts to
improve, is in point 3 above.  It seems to me that in your paragraph
above, you refer to point 1.

How would you define consistency in the context of a human examining a
svr4 file?

>> 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?

Do you have any specific solution in mind?  How would it work?

Maciej