[zeromq-dev] Contribution policy and quality of commits

[Martin Lucina]

martin at lucina.net said:
> The libzmq process as defined leaves no provision for code review
> whatsoever.
> 
> I realise that code review is time consuming, costly, and often boring.
> 
> If my suggestion is unreasonable due to the fact that the current
> maintainers are unpaid volunteers, then the real problem is elsewhere; the
> community should get its act together and:
> 
> a) recruit a competent maintainer with domain expertise from within its
> ranks
> 
> b) put in place a mechanism to fund such a maintainer

I missed a very important point which has been brought up before -

When patches were sent to the mailing list *before* being committed to the
libzmq repo, this provided a window of time for voluntary code review and
discussion.

This works because there is almost no effort required on the part of
potential "lurker" reviewers. Email is a "push" system with PUB/SUB
topic filtering using the human mind; we're really good at this.

One can lurk on the mailing list, skim threads that one has no opinion on
or are outside of ones domain expertise. When a relevant thread or *PATCH*
comes up, you can trivially comment on it.

This is no longer possible with the current process. I would have to
actively spend time on

a) going to the libzmq github page with pull requests
b) somehow figuring out which I have read, have not read, and which are
relevant. lots of clicks involved.
c) commenting on the pull request itself.

Even then, the PUB/SUB model is broken. Only those people who *actively*
monitor Github lest they miss some important commit get a chance to review
it.

So the current process actually *decreases* the amount of voluntary code
review that could be provided by the community.

-mato