Hey,
I'm also fine either way. So if no separate queue is set up, I'd appropriate it if the semantic* commits where not marked as deferred from now on.
Cheers
-- Jeroen De Dauw * http://blog.bn2vs.com * http://wiki.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. 50 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65! --
On 21 July 2010 14:47, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/21 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
I'm also not sure how Code Review will handle a repository handling a subset of another repository. I'm pretty sure things will be ok, I only imagine it would just duplicate data (revs for SMW stuff would be imported for both repos). Still should be tested first though. Then we would need someone with repoadmin rights to set this up, I believe Brion or Tim can.
Why would you want to do this? With the path search feature, it's extremely easy to pull up a list of revs touching a certain extension. I really don't see why the SMW review queue has to be separate from the main MW review queue on a technical level; of course it would be on a personal level, in that different people review different things, but we have that already for e.g. UsabilityInitiative. In practical terms, people who are familiar with the SMW codebase would start reviewing SMW revisions through our existing CodeReview setup, and the only thing we would have to do on a technical level is make sure those paths don't get auto-deferred.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I agree with you here. They were just suggesting another route. Honestly, I don't really care either way :) The fix in r69675 is generally useful though, if repositories were segemented in that manner.
-Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l