Jan Luca wrote:
Thank you. But I mean which requirements are there?
Gruß Jan Luca
I don't think they are really clear.
Some relevant bits from http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/39896
Brion:
I've thrown together a little CodeReview extension for MediaWiki to help with this. It pulls the SVN revision data as commits are made and presents an interface on the wiki where we can see what's been reviewed, tag problems, and add comments for follow-up issues.
Currently comments are open to any registered user on the wiki; status changes and tagging updates are limited to the 'coder' group, which is viral -- any coder can make another user a coder.
Simetrical:
I'm assuming that people who have had commit access for a reasonably long time and have shown they know how to use it should be marked coders, but I'm still really uncertain given that nobody's actually said what the various statuses are supposed to actually mean. Are people going to actually scap on the basis of nothing other than the fact that every commit is marked ok/resolved? If so, it's probably a bad idea for people other than Tim or Brion to add those markings, at least on a regular basis, unless we really want that.
Brion:
The current theory is we'd like it to be easy to mark things as needing *more* review, but hard to mark things as needing *less* review.
So that probably means a split-level permissions model, perhaps with distinct pre-review and super-review (to use the Mozilla term -- patch reviews get "super-reviewed" by a core committer, or some such crazy thing).
It is, of course, an evolving system. :)