Re: review process (was: C++ PATCH: Unify name lookup 2/n)

[Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>]

On 31-Mar-2003, Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:14:20PM +1000, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > 
> > Here are some possible suggestions (I'm just brain-storming here):
> 
> Understood and agreed.
> 
> > 	- define a new category of "self-approve" developers?
> 
> What would this offer us that the existing categories (delimited in the
> MAINTAINERS file) do not already offer?  Frex, I can self-approve my own
> patches to libstdc++.  If I feel they are risky, I ask for review by other
> maintainers and state that I'll hold off for a few days until someone else
> looks the risky patch over.  But I cannot self-approve to areas outside
> of libstdc++ (barring the usual exceptions).  This seems to be equivlent
> to your paragraph's points.  Am I missing something?

Well, the difference is that you're only allowed to approve your own
patches, not someone else's patches.  The intent here is to create
a new position which is less trusted than a normal "maintainer",
and whose approval powers are thus significantly limited --
limited to only approving their own patches, only after these patches
have been reviewed by another human, and only after a one-week delay.
Since this position of "self-approve" developer is less trusted
than a normal "maintainer", it would be reasonable to appoint more people
to that position, but doing so might improve throughput (compared to leaving
these people as "write after approval" developers).

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.