On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 16:02, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> No, I think some reviews of the code itself are essential for clearing
> up misunderstandings. Without a shared history, words are too imprecise.
> 
Absolutely. But why does it have to be one set of 'privileged' eyes?
Just throw it in the update stream as long as you're alpha, so anyone
can look and feed back information/comments to the authors. 

We probably want different rules for different times: alpha accepts
mostly anything (or maybe mostly anything after the first patch by an
author), beta needs X amount of review, gamma needs Y amount of review,
and released needs Z amount of review, where presumable X < Y < Z. 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030507/7c6bf63a/attachment.pgp