From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-70286-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901E4138A6C
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:03:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 155ECE08A0;
	Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:03:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 470B5E07A7
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:03:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.12] (aftr-37-201-229-106.unity-media.net [37.201.229.106])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: hasufell)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F271340CCD
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:03:37 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <55325614.4060506@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:03:16 +0200
From: hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Becoming a Gentoo developer?
References: <552A625D.7030000@seismic.de>	<1428844100.2041.166.camel@gentoo.org>	<552A80E9.1010103@seismic.de>	<201504121705.13255.dilfridge@gentoo.org>	<552DDC18.3050304@seismic.de>	<20150415130214.18559.qmail@stuge.se>	<5530E162.2010409@gentoo.org>	<20150417140030.2a4dc50e53bbebc8a77edef7@gentoo.org>	<5530EB29.9030205@gentoo.org>	<20150417152653.20f25fd7e411f7e2cc59f51b@gentoo.org>	<55310178.2090404@gentoo.org>	<20150417173349.2b4eef4151a3e45719be2bd5@gentoo.org>	<55311BA1.4050906@gentoo.org>	<CAGfcS_mBuMP4=r5xW_-7Qy+h_Tc01u448h+3sOu+QBB6rj9pWQ@mail.gmail.com>	<553220CC.3050104@gentoo.org> <CAGfcS_n3ift2E9e_ej2hSijbw-5xcFF=ZNcUzumVeG8b6nX9tA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_n3ift2E9e_ej2hSijbw-5xcFF=ZNcUzumVeG8b6nX9tA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: 0e697791-b572-46e7-a148-6c46ad1494c5
X-Archives-Hash: 5d18e24fc529a9c7fcdd482b88c0d9b5

On 04/18/2015 02:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I am really confused. I guess some people have never really been in a
>> different workflow than gentoo to know that it's really not
>> state-of-the-art. And it really isn't. Not even for distros.
>>
> 
> I am not saying that a review workflow is bad.  I just don't see how
> it fixes our actual problems, which is a lack of commits in the first
> place.
> 

I think this should be so obvious by now given the past discussions
(even in this very thread) that I'm not sure if I have to repeat myself.

Having a proper review workflow/platform increases the contribution
factor of the community. And not just that.

I'm also not going to give real-world examples of such workflows in big
projects: just head over to github.