On 2010-11-02, Trevor Parscal wrote:
The idea of dividing deploy and enable seems strange to me. Only in the case of a feature-flagged bit of core code or extension which has not been deployed yet would this even work, in all other cases deployment is enabling because you've just updated active code.
Additionally, the idea of having a division between need-review and need-deploy is counter to the arguments made in D.C. which were that essentially review is a by-product of deployment, not the other way around. Marking something as need-deploy shows reviewers what should be reviewed and merged into the deployment branch.
So essentially all we need is a single queue or tag, which indicates this is a revision that affects deployed/to-be-deployed software.
I wasn't present in D.C. so can't comment on the arguments made there, but it is my understanding that there are people who are responsible for reviewing code who aren't able/willing to deploy it - so this isn't something that has a binary state. Also, I think it would be useful to document the movement between review, deployment, and enabling - as even if this is done by a single person they might not be able to complete it in one session, and the transparency is nice.
An even in this case where I've reduced it to a single tag, someone has to actually mark revs with that tag, but the nature of the tag isn't really based on any single revision, it's based on a resource.
Code-review needs a way to tag files and directories rather than just revisions. These resource-tags would be persistent between revisions, allowing us to say "show me 'new' revisions that affect 'deployment' files and directories" or some such. This would likely be core + some extensions.
The more work we have to do over and over (such as adding and managing tags on revisions) the less likely we are to keep it up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we're talking specifically about completely unreviewed extensions that need looking at entirely - not incrementally. Certainly once an extension has been initially reviewed and deployed, the existing code review system would come in to effect - and I don't think we need to change anything with that at the moment.
Robert