At the request of a few folks, I've done some research on how the open source project Launchpad does code review and deployment.
In Launchpad, all developers are also code reviewers for about a day a week. All developers write "merge proposals" and attach them to their branches, and their colleagues review those branches and proposals within a day. Code reviewing is not primarily a gate to keep bugs out of code, but a social step, to get a second set of eyes on code, and to spread knowledge around. After code review, and automated testing on an EC2 instance, the developer lands the branch in trunk, a developer QAs it, and it gets deployed onto production in a matter of days or hours.
A few key differences from MediaWiki:
* No volunteer reviewers, small volunteer contributor community * Review trainees have already seen what a good code review looks like, perhaps need less training * Started with backlog of less than a week's worth of commits
I've stuck a more detailed description here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Sumanah/Launchpad-dev-process
in case people want to get some ideas before the code review discussion tomorrow:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_review_management/July_2011_training
Thanks for the nice report Sumana. Will we be doing deep dives like this with other open source projects?
--tomasz
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org wrote:
At the request of a few folks, I've done some research on how the open source project Launchpad does code review and deployment.
In Launchpad, all developers are also code reviewers for about a day a week. All developers write "merge proposals" and attach them to their branches, and their colleagues review those branches and proposals within a day. Code reviewing is not primarily a gate to keep bugs out of code, but a social step, to get a second set of eyes on code, and to spread knowledge around. After code review, and automated testing on an EC2 instance, the developer lands the branch in trunk, a developer QAs it, and it gets deployed onto production in a matter of days or hours.
A few key differences from MediaWiki:
* No volunteer reviewers, small volunteer contributor community * Review trainees have already seen what a good code review looks like, perhaps need less training * Started with backlog of less than a week's worth of commits
I've stuck a more detailed description here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Sumanah/Launchpad-dev-process
in case people want to get some ideas before the code review discussion tomorrow:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_review_management/July_2011_training
-- Sumana Harihareswara Volunteer Development Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Tomasz, if people find it valuable, we'll definitely consider it. I'm most interested in investigating other projects who deploy onto high-traffic websites, and have relatively high-speed code review, merge, deploy, and release turnaround. A few places where we could grab ideas:
* OpenStack (I believe Ryan Lane mentioned that they integrate substantial volunteer contributions into an Agile process) * Mozilla (they successfully ask all contributors, including volunteers, to submit tests along with their patches)
Sumana Harihareswara Volunteer Development Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Tomasz Finc tfinc@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thanks for the nice report Sumana. Will we be doing deep dives like this with other open source projects?
--tomasz
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org wrote:
At the request of a few folks, I've done some research on how the open source project Launchpad does code review and deployment.
In Launchpad, all developers are also code reviewers for about a day a week. All developers write "merge proposals" and attach them to their branches, and their colleagues review those branches and proposals within a day. Code reviewing is not primarily a gate to keep bugs out of code, but a social step, to get a second set of eyes on code, and to spread knowledge around. After code review, and automated testing on an EC2 instance, the developer lands the branch in trunk, a developer QAs it, and it gets deployed onto production in a matter of days or hours.
A few key differences from MediaWiki:
* No volunteer reviewers, small volunteer contributor community * Review trainees have already seen what a good code review lookslike, perhaps need less training * Started with backlog of less than a week's worth of commits
I've stuck a more detailed description here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Sumanah/Launchpad-dev-process
in case people want to get some ideas before the code review discussion tomorrow:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_review_management/July_2011_training
-- Sumana Harihareswara Volunteer Development Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org