On 3/22/11 6:05 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Our code review tool is pretty nice, but we can't
let it
be the tail that wags the dog.
At the risk of being impolite -- our code review tool is not that nice.
(I don't expect that anyone who worked on it would even disagree with me
here.)
It happens to be our home grown tool, and it uses a framework that more
of us are familiar with. But it's not such an overwhelming asset that we
should consider staying on SVN because of it. In 2011 there are lots of
code review frameworks out there to choose from.
I believe that once the reviewers get the hang of Git,
they'll be more
efficient, and be more capable of keeping up. I think paired with
Neil's proposal[1] that we switch to pre-commit reviews, and we might
actually be able to get back on a regular release cycle.
I have to confess this is my main interest in at least re-examining our
source control situation. Git doesn't necessarily make pre-commit code
review easier, but as a side effect it will allow us to consider other
options.
If you don't believe me about pre-commit code review, ask any of your
friends who work for (or who have worked for) Google. Even people who
were very skeptical will usually say that it is has been a huge benefit.
--
Neil Kandalgaonkar (| <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>