Cool system, Brion!
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Bureaucrats can also add people. 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.
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. :)
I was thinking somewhat along those lines. It's nifty to be able to have people pitch into the review process - it might take some load off Tim and Brion for people to be able to point out problems with code before it hits the final review - that way, mostly good stuff is left for Tim and Brion to look at.
We could also have a preliminary tag for "looks okay, but needs to be looked at by somebody else before it's put live", so that less thorough reviewers (e.g. myself) would be able to look over code without actually marking it as "definitely OK", which should be reserved for thorough, trusted reviewers like Tim and Brion.
It also might be a good idea to add a 'tested' tag - for code which has been verified to at least *work* (ideally, of course, this will be done BEFORE committing, but perhaps testing by somebody else would aid in the review process).
Just a few thoughts...