I agree with the reviewers thing. Because then it gets put on the record as
to who supported/had a problem with the commit.
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
| tylerromeo(a)gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jon Robson <jdlrobson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think adding reviewers to commit messages would be a
useful thing to
do and I guess should be relatively easy?
I think a form of tagging in gerrit would be highly useful.
The thing I got from this article is sometimes it is useful to a
potential code reviewer to get an idea of how much time they need to
invest in a code review and how important it is compared to other
patches.
In the MobileFrontend project alone I could imagine the tags
'trivial', 'nicetohave', 'criticalbugfix' and
'currentiteration' would
be useful to the team. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between
experimental features we are playing with, things that need to be
deployed asap and things that relate to our agile style of working
which need more attention if they are to be completed before the end
of an iterative cycle.
Is there any such concept of tags in gerrit? It would be great to be
able to get an idea about a patchset's importance before checking out
the code and inspecting commits.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Juliusz Gonera <jgonera(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I liked the post, but I'm not sure what
exactly we should change in our
code
reviews. Could you explain?
On 01/21/2013 01:40 PM, Ori Livneh wrote:
>
> There's a useful blog post on code review at Mozilla by Mozilla
developer
> David Humphrey on his blog:
<http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=1569>.
>
> I like his breakdown of different types of code reviews. It seems like
at
> Mozilla there is a lot of room for the patch
submitter to indicate to
> reviewers what sort of review is needed for a particular patch, ranging
from
> requests for manual testing and careful
scrutiny all the way to what
> Humphrey calls "catechism reviews", in which the committer uses a review
> request to announce her intent and solicit a basic sanity-check.
>
> Unofficially such reviews do not exist at the WMF because we are all
> infallibly meticulous and diligent about testing every branch of every
code
> change. But unofficially they do, of course.
It'd be nice if such
reviews
> were formally sanctioned (with whatever
qualifications). I'm interested
to
hear
other people's thoughts.
--
Ori Livneh
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Jon Robson
http://jonrobson.me.uk
@rakugojon
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l