CI system maintainability

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Thursday, 28 March 2019 10:08:54 CET Luca Beltrame wrote:
> In data giovedì 28 marzo 2019 09:50:47 CET, Kevin Ottens ha scritto:
> > I'd argue we're loosing more with the current state of PIM than we'd loose
> > with mandatory reviews.
> 
> Perhaps, instead of an all-or-nothing approach, why not a minimal set of
> "requirements" that would require a review? Yes, it requires more discipline
> from those involved, but at least it will help people getting "ingrained"
> with the concept without being a wall.

I'm almost tempted to reply "been there, done that". It's kind of the 
situation we have today.
 
> Examples:
> 
> - No review: typo fixes, compile errors, version bumps (internal)
> - Review: build system adjustments (perhaps CC some people knowledgeable in
> this case), non-trivial changes like patches
> - "Deprecation" removals (as in the casus belli here) - review if touching
> more than a handful of files / multiple repos
> 
> (list made by someone who has a passing knowledge of C++, so feel free to
> rip me to shreds)

OK, to be fair not 100% today's situation because of the above. It was based 
on best judgment maybe we're missing such a set of guidelines. I admit I'm 
slightly doubtful though.

Regards.
-- 
Kevin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20190328/bdfd4f60/attachment.sig>