On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Bawolff Bawolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One thing I would like to see is code from projects
being merged into core
at a regular basis instead of just at the end. Obviously that might not be
possible for all projects depending on what your project is, but many that
modify core can be done in incremental steps. I don't know about last year
specificly but in other years there have been gsoc projects coded away
happily in branches, getting code review but not held to the same standard
as core was. When they tried to merge it the student gets a rather rude
awekening with all sorts of objections to their code they didnt expect.
Tl; dr: good in depth feedback early and often is critical for success. If
we make people merge their projects in small steps as they complete
independant features (like once every 2 weeks) gsocers get better feedback
and no giant painful merge at the end.
I concur and offer to document that.
Something like this text could be
used in this purpose.
== Tips ==
=== Push to Gerrit to show your code. In code review we trust. ===
MediaWiki uses a continuous integration model. Code is first
peer-reviewed: other developers provide feedback about your code,
approve it or recommend improvements. Jenkins tests run too, to ensure
your code doesn't break anything. When your change is ready, it's
merged in the master branch of our code repository.
Follow this workflow. Push your code to Gerrit when you want to show
it. Add your mentor as reviewer. Others will join the conversation on
a regular basis. You'll learn a lot from the others reviewers'
And the greatest bonus? Your code will be merged on a continuous
basis. You will directly be able to see your code live and in
production. This is what we're calling the continuous integration.
Sébastien Santoro aka Dereckson