Petr Bena wrote:
My point is that if review of 15 lines of code, takes 6+ months, there
is very
likely a reason for improvement of current process, which may
look as
"working". If I knew it works like it actually works I would
never tried to
work on what I did. So if there is not going to be
improvement in this area,
there should either be notification that
review of code may take years unless
you work for wmf on the page
describing the current process, or people from
community shouldn't be
even suggested to work on that.
Regarding the 15 lines of code, are you referring to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32819? It looks like a bug was submitted on December 6. Less than a week later, Bawolff came along and reviewed the code (on December 15; see comment 3). And then you never responded to any of the review he left. Did you simply overlook it? It seems rather strange that you'd complain about this situation, though, so perhaps you're talking about a different 15 lines of code? Clarification would be appreciated. :-)
There are a lot of problems with Wikimedia's/MediaWiki's code review processes, but in this particular case, it looks like the ball is in your court. (And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure your implementation of the idea makes much sense; see my comment on the bug.)
And if you'd like to document the current practices/procedures regarding code review (including the excessive wait time), you're more than welcome to create or update a page on Meta-Wiki or MediaWiki.org (or several pages, go wild!). Tim's suggestion that to document the current situation somehow makes it more real is incredibly silly and can safely be ignored. Giving volunteer developers fair warning is the right thing to do, even if it currently involves ugly truths.
MZMcBride