Roan Kattouw wrote:
2011/3/26 Mark A. Hershberger mhershberger@wikimedia.org:
If code is to survive past a week in the repository, it has to be reviewed.
This is basically what I suggested in the other thread, except I added a few other conditions that have to be satisfied before we can start using such a paradigm (relating to reviewer allocation, discipline and assignment).
A number of people, for quite some time, have been urging MediaWiki code development to get back to the Brion/Tim style of "revert if broken." I'm certainly among them, so I'm thrilled to see this discussion finally happening. Next step is action. :-)
In addition to the other benefits, more regular reverts will (hopefully) reduce the stigma of being reverted. The wiki model has always encouraged boldness, but it has also equally encouraged the ability to pull back changes as necessary. The tendency to not revert nearly as much made a reversion a much bigger deal, from what I've seen. Even more so (or perhaps exclusively so) when it has involved "paid work" (i.e., work done by Wikimedia Foundation employees/contractors). A move toward more reverts, as long as it doesn't discourage new or old contributors, is definitely the way forward, I think.
MZMcBride