[Qgis-developer] Project quality discussion

[Hugo Mercier]

Yes, that would be ideal.

But do we have enough money for that ?
And is it a full time job ?

Or to put it another way: what is the budget we can assign for this task ?

On 09/11/2015 23:59, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> The main problem I see in having a formal pay to review/merge model, no
> matter the scale, is that it is a pay to win model no matter how to
> goes.  If you have the money you can pay someone to push it though
> quicker which doesn't give others the same ability if they don't have
> the cash.  
> 
> Personally the only way I can see this model working is if we have a
> full time dev for the project that can review most PRs, or the QGIS.ORG
> <http://QGIS.ORG> board can allocate funds to a core dev to review a set
> of PRs. This way the project is in control and not "Hey X, I have a
> stack of cash here. Be a buddy and merge my stuff for me will ya"
> 
> I am streamlining the QEP process so that the whole think is quicker and
> faster to do.
> 
> - Nathan
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Hugo Mercier <hugo.mercier at oslandia.com
> <mailto:hugo.mercier at oslandia.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 09/11/2015 12:23, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>     > 2015-11-09 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com>
>     > <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com>>>:
>     >
> 
>     >
>     >     The way I read this is that THEY would have to pay for their
>     >     contribution to be reviewed.
>     >
>     >     Nyall
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Only if nobody volunteers to review that for free.
> 
> 
>     Yes. Or to put it differently: only if THEY want a guarantee on
>     acceptability / decision delay
> 
> 
>     >
>     > To address 2, the QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> <http://QGIS.ORG>
>     will ask if somebody is
>     > volunteering to review the code in a certain time (and keep the money
>     > for the project in that case) an hire a core dev to do the code review
>     > in case no one is available (still keeping part of the money for the
>     > internal expenses).
>     >
> 
>     I agree. But I am pretty sure if it is known there is money for a
>     review, nobody would like to review it for free (and it would make
>     sense). So I am not sure about the first part of your "if" :)
> 
>     I also think it could generalize to QEP reviews as well.
> 
>     > This is not killing voluntary work, provides some additional funds for
>     > QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> <http://QGIS.ORG>, reward core devs
>     (and feeds their children)
>     > and moreover guarantee certain times and a clear and transparent path
>     > for new features approval process to not-core devs.
> 
>     +1
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Qgis-developer mailing list
>     Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> 
>