CI system maintainability

[Luca Beltrame]

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.

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)

Pre-commit CI (i.e. once the switch to GitLab occurs) and perhaps direct 
mailing to the user (as I suggested earlier) in case of continuous failures 
will also help.

If this thing works, one can gradually ramp up the requirements of things that 
go through review when the "muscle memory" is formed.

-- 
Luca Beltrame
GPG key ID: A29D259B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20190328/7f240c1d/attachment.sig>