Re: CVS Account Request
| From: | Zeev Suraski | Date: | Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:32:13 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: CVS Account Request | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-dev+get-38198@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
At 23:15 15/11/2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
Secondly, TONS of bugs have been introduced by buggy CVS commits from
people that touched things they weren't completely familiar with, or worse,
did things in apparently non core places, that still resulted in either
security problems or other sorts of crash bugs. I'm not sure where we
would have been without Andi's "CVS police", and frankly, I have no idea
where he's drawing the strength to go over almost all of the CVS commits from.
I have not seen anything during the last three years which
would qualify as "tons of bugs" introduced by committers. It
is also the first time that I hear the term "CVS police". We
all do peer review; that is all php-cvs is about.
Well, I have logs from the last 4.5 years. I can go through them if you'd like, but I can assure you that there were plenty. Remember, that one is enough.
I don't see what you do, but judging from the Email exchange I see, Andi is one of the only people that actually looks at *ANY* commit that is made, regardless of the module it's made to. Obviously he can't catch all, or even most bugs - but he did catch plenty of security bugs in the past.
Peer review was usually done only on areas that were of interest to everyone. Did you look at Onn's Fribidi extension code? Can you assure me that it doesn't introduce buffer overflows?
We can regulate the access to various modules using ACLs. No
need to divide repositories per se. Having said that, I see
currently no reason to regulate that much further.