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