I have a script that can be used to automatically add code reviewers for a commit (instead of opening the list of core reviewers in one browser tab and manually add them one by one in the review page). Should this be a GitHub gist, a small repo under my GitHub account or a subfolder in starlingx-staging/unofficial-tools-where-code-goes-to-die? Thanks, Daniel ________________________________________ From: Dean Troyer [dtroyer@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 15:55 To: Curtis Cc: Saul Wold; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Contrib or Experimental tools location ?? On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:39 AM Curtis <serverascode@gmail.com> wrote:
Ultimately I believe we are arguing different goals with the same points.
I'm ok with bit rot, it's inevitable, and can actually be a good thing. I'm ok with code with lower standards being contributed to a place where it can be legitimized.
These things are pros to me. :)
I am not against having a place for unofficial code to go and rot, I am against it being associated with the StarlingX name in a way that drags down the perception of the code we produce. And that is all we produce in the end, code in repositories.
There would have to be some standards, eg. no pyc files, no -2s to new contributors, etc. Arbitrary no, curated yes.
To me 'curated' includes vetting suitability for purpose. Untested code is broken code. I would support a repo in github.com/starlingx-staging or an index anywhere but not a repo in Gerrit without meeting a certain minimum of quality and accountability. dt -- Dean Troyer dtroyer@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss