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. :)