Hi folks,
is there any posibility reviewing code _after_ it has been merged as it was before we went to git/gerrit like the mw cr special page. Or us the bug tracker the only remaining way to do it?
Greetings xqt
You can still leave comments, just not scores.
-Chad On Jul 31, 2013 8:41 PM, info@gno.de wrote:
Hi folks,
is there any posibility reviewing code _after_ it has been merged as it was before we went to git/gerrit like the mw cr special page. Or us the bug tracker the only remaining way to do it?
Greetings xqt
Pywikipedia-l mailing list Pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikipedia-l
Ok (or to bad). I am just for a tool stuff reminder for "this part of code has still remaining bugs" (fixme) and when it is solved mark it as solved. I assume we must use the bug tracker for that which is not very comfortable (at least of the last changes at sf ihmo).
xqt
----- Original Nachricht ---- Von: Chad Horohoe chorohoe@wikimedia.org An: Pywikipedia discussion list pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 01.08.2013 16:47 Betreff: Re: [Pywikipedia-l] Code review in gerrit
You can still leave comments, just not scores.
-Chad On Jul 31, 2013 8:41 PM, info@gno.de wrote:
Hi folks,
is there any posibility reviewing code _after_ it has been merged as it was before we went to git/gerrit like the mw cr special page. Or us the
bug
tracker the only remaining way to do it?
Greetings xqt
Pywikipedia-l mailing list Pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikipedia-l
Pywikipedia-l mailing list Pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikipedia-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02.08.2013 08:52, info@gno.de wrote:
Ok (or to bad). I am just for a tool stuff reminder for "this part of code has still remaining bugs" (fixme) and when it is solved mark it as solved. I assume we must use the bug tracker for that which is not very comfortable (at least of the last changes at sf ihmo).
Again a new workflow... But somehow may be an improvement (I am desperately trying to see the good things... ;) beacuse then everything will be kept together. In the past we had "fixme" AND the bug tracker which are 2 thing to check and sync. E.g. I discovered just by accident that some quite old commits of me were recently marked as "fixme" - which should improve if we use the bug tracker... (maybe)
DrTrigon
On 2 August 2013 08:52, info@gno.de wrote:
Ok (or to bad). I am just for a tool stuff reminder for "this part of code has still remaining bugs" (fixme) and when it is solved mark it as solved. I assume we must use the bug tracker for that which is not very comfortable (at least of the last changes at sf ihmo).
I think the basic workflow would be to fix those bugs before merging the code. Of course, it could be possible one would want to merge code that is not perfect yet, but keeping that in a bug I think would be better. In my experience the best part about the post-commit code review was getting comments on your work, which you then could fix - but now we can do this before even merging the code! :-)
Merlijn
pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org