+1
I believe the way forward involves using pre-commit review, requiring test
coverage to pass review, and developers working in branches at all times.
SVN may be a pita when it comes to branches, but that's a solvable problem.
- Trevor
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Garrett <agarrett(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Chad
<innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think "revert in 72 hours if its
unreviewed" is a good idea. It
just discourages people from contributing to areas in which we only
have one reviewer looking at code.
I *do* think we should enforce a 48hr "revert if broken" rule. If you
can't be bothered to clean up your breakages in within 48 hours of
putting your original patch in, it must not have been very important.
I'm really not a fan of drop-dead deadlines in the one to two day
range in general. I occasionally have periods of about two or three
days when I don't have access to a computer (or time to use one).
I think that if we actually want pre-commit review (which I don't have
a problem with), we should have pre-commit review instead of excessive
reversion. Reverts make the revision log hard to follow, feel like a
slap in the face to many developers (especially new ones, who this
policy is supposed to be attracting!), and of course give us lots of
merge conflicts and what not.
I think it would combine with commits of code that's broken in the
first place to exacerbate the current situation where a single change
can have up to ten associated revisions where people fix little
things, revert, unrevert, and generally make things difficult to
review and follow.
--
Andrew Garrett
Wikimedia Foundation
agarrett(a)wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l