"Brion Vibber" <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote in message
news:BANLkTikTz=V77o8vYMxbA91dj=PNNbvO=w@mail.gmail.com...
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com
wrote:
So then what happens if volunteers'
contributions aren't reviewed
promptly?
Indeed, this is why we need to demonstrate that we can actually push code
through the system on a consistent basis... until we can, nobody seems
willing to trust pre-commit review.
-- brion
+1. Pre-commit-review, post-commit-lifetime, branching, testing, whatever;
all of the suggestions I've seen so far are IMO doomed to fail because they
do not fix the underlying problem that not enough experienced manhours are
being dedicated to Code Review for the amount of work (not the 'number of
commits', the amount of *energy* to make changes to code) in the system. A
pre-commit-review system doesn't reduce the amount of work needed to get a
feature into deployment, it just changes the nature of the process. At the
moment revisions sit unloved in trunk until they fossilise in; in that
system with the current balance of time they would sit unloved in a bugzilla
thread or branch until they bitrot into oblivion.
There *are* strategies that could be implemented (like the
review-and-super-review processes used by Mozilla) that *can* streamline the
process, but as has been said elsewhere, that *still* needs top-level
direction. The members of Foundation staff who consistently get involved
with these discussions do generally seem only to have hold of the
deckchairs, not the wheelhouse.
--HM