Roan Kattouw wrote:
2011/3/26 Mark A. Hershberger
<mhershberger(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
If code is to survive past a week in the
repository, it has to be
reviewed.
This is basically what I suggested in the other thread, except I added
a few other conditions that have to be satisfied before we can start
using such a paradigm (relating to reviewer allocation, discipline and
assignment).
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
You mentioned reverting broken code.
Mark proposes reverting *unreviewed* code.
We are generally polite by marking fixme the code from others, and
avoiding reverting as much as possible. I agree with the proposal of
reverting after a few days with an "important fixme". But reverting new
revisions because noone reviewed it, seems going too far (at least at
this moment).
It would make much more sense to draft some process where you have to
review the previous revision of the files you are changing. However,
that would forbid fast fixes (eg. fixing the whitespace of the previous
commit) without fully reviewing it, which is also undesirable (the
revision keeps unreviewed, and with the wrong whitespace).