in the course of
we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus needed a CQ.
It took about one month to review it.
I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load, so the following is in no way a criticism of the
people who actually do the legal review.
Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule.
IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives for a thriving opensource project.
Here is why I think so:
The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to prove it works.
This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to thoroughly test.
Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms of LOC.
However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you want to attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit.
Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish them with an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be merged.
Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because technically you can split up any commit into any number
of smaller commits below the 1000 line limit.
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit