Trevor Parscal wrote:
On 11/2/10 12:40 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
I agree that review and deployment are two parts
of a whole and that
one doesn't make sense without the other, but I don't think that, of
the two, deployment is necessarily the defining part.
Do you mean that there are
times we would want to review something that
would not be later deployed?
- Trevor
Reviewing means 'the code has been looked [at some user dependant
scrutiny level] by someone other than the author and deemed to be
right/acceptable/bug-free'.
A user provided patch in bugzilla needs reviewing before adding to
trunk*, but that doesn't mean it should be deployed (trivial example: it
could be a patch for an extension).
A revision on a non WMF-used extension or a branch can be reviewed. If
it has passed the process we defined as reviewing (and perhaps had some
bugs fixed in doign that), there is no sense to mark is as not reviewed.
Sure, the extension/branch may later have a full review if it is going
to be deployed. But they should be marked as reviewed if they are.
In a perfect world, every bit of code in trunk would be reviewed. That
would make for a really sane software. For now, let's struggle for
reviewing truunk phase3 and the long dreamed periodical scaps.
*In fact, that would have a double review, first by the commiter and
then by the revision reviewer, unless it is deferred.