|
|
|
|
|
|
by eviks
350 days ago
|
|
|
> It is, but directly, not as a subversion. It is directly challenged in the very thread linked in the article (and likely before, the drama is ancient). Also, there is no "less stringent reviewer", it's always been the same you! So your example fails at both core points, yet your outcome is still the same happy firing! At least for paid work you can just sprinkle $ to cover up such mistakes and find someone else, but wait, this is also not paid work! |
|
|
Linux caught Kent when he tried to sneak in non-bugfixes into a RC, and berated him.
After that (not before, this is a critical distinction) Kent said "I don't want to abide by the rules, because I have my concerns".
This is very similar to the situation I have described, except that in Linux it was Linus who was skipping reviews on Kent's code trusting him not to subvert the rules, and in situation I described the team collectively was trusting each other not to subvert the rules.