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).
A number of people, for quite some time, have been urging MediaWiki code
development to get back to the Brion/Tim style of "revert if broken." I'm
certainly among them, so I'm thrilled to see this discussion finally
happening. Next step is action. :-)
In addition to the other benefits, more regular reverts will (hopefully)
reduce the stigma of being reverted. The wiki model has always encouraged
boldness, but it has also equally encouraged the ability to pull back
changes as necessary. The tendency to not revert nearly as much made a
reversion a much bigger deal, from what I've seen. Even more so (or perhaps
exclusively so) when it has involved "paid work" (i.e., work done by
Wikimedia Foundation employees/contractors). A move toward more reverts, as
long as it doesn't discourage new or old contributors, is definitely the way
forward, I think.
MZMcBride