cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Giacomo Pati <>
Subject Re: [ADMIN] process for applying patches
Date Sat, 04 Nov 2000 07:13:06 GMT
Jeff Turner wrote:
> I think this is a general problem with popular open source projects. Each
> project has to get the committer:contributor ratio right. Assuming Cocoon
> has the right ratio, but still experiences problems...
> A possible solution: ordinary cocoon-devvers "register" themselves as
> interested in certain parts of Cocoon. If you a) understand the general
> architecture, and b) understand what file does, register your
> interest. When someone proposes a patch to, those registered can
> review the patch. If the patch looks good, reviewers +1 it on this list.
> When a real committer has a chance to review the patch, they can have much
> more confidence in the quality of the patch. Committers can concentrate on
> whether a patch violates design issues, rather than simpler implementation
> issues.

My personal opinion about this is that I feel it is too formal. I think
commiters and developers should automatically feel responsable for parts of the
system they are interested on. And if a patch gets forgotten I hope those
interested poeple stand up and say so on the list (and not only the original
contributor). Nobody is perfect but if we help each other we can make it more
perfect as a community not as an individual.

> To implement this system, we could set up a web site where people register
> themselves as reviewers, and indicate which files they are interested in.
> Then if I modify, I can look up who's registered as reviewers and
> send the patch to them (in addition to cocoon-dev). There can be an online
> voting system, where reviewers who do their job well get recognised
> (possibly leading to commit access), and those who don't get automatically
> removed after a few -1's. The whole system can work without any
> intervention from the cocoon maintainers.

What do others think about such a formalism?


View raw message