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