RM responsibility

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kent Gibson wrote:
> I'm tempted to suggest that cores should also require a review by 2
> others, i.e their don't get to review their own code, but that would
> just add to the review backlog.

What motivates that suggestion?

I guess my feeling is that you get diminishing returns from reviews the
more experience the submitter has.  Certainly you get fewer style
issues, and it tends to come down to "is this a good idea" rather than
"is this well-implemented" more often.

> It would be nice for the cores to aim to have code reviewed within a week.
> That would certainly help to keep the pipeline flowing and keep the
> non-cores more engaged.

I do try to do that.  Some patches lie outside my comfort zone, so they
either take longer, or I leave them to someone else.  And there are some
patches I don't want to review.  It shouldn't fall to me all the time,
but it often seems to.

>> It's worth stressing that the
>> roadmap might be labelled a "performance" one but it's more than
>> that: it's about restructuring the code so we can do some truly
>> exciting new features as well.

Hey, no fair!  I sacrificed my new features for "performance".

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGi8K30F+nu1YWqI0RAlvDAJ0QNKOxMUAtBdSQPXnTYTi1MQigjACeJ70V
sc8t3EWy9er+YWeaPTex8Os=
=ovGP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----