Darren J Moffat writes: > Roland Mainz wrote: > > Does OpenSolaris have a concept of a "preliminary code review" ?
No ... but I don't think it needs to have one formally. Just post a link to your materials, set the boundary conditions (the expectations you have for the results of the review), and ask for folks to volunteer to do that work. I don't see why we would need or want a formal process for something like that. Just asking seems much simpler. > > The problem is that we host our code on svn.genunix.org and the final > > review must be done on a SCCS tree within Sun itself, making it a little > > bit tricky to move changes between trees (e.g. at least it's consuming > > lots time). > > Codereview is usually done using webrev so as long as your are > publishing webrev output then there wouldn't be that much difference > between the SVN view of the world and the Teamware view. "Usually," yes, but it hardly seems like a process requirement at this level. I'd say this: treat your reviewers with respect. Provide them with complete and usable materials. Don't leave anything out. Give references to background information where necessary. Point out areas that are potentially problematic. Invite as many people who have specific understanding of particular areas as you can. If the materials are large, try breaking them up or color-coding so that reviewers with special interests (e.g., Makefiles) can find just those things with minimal effort. Don't just reject all the comments; investigate each one. Make sure you conduct as thorough a review as possible. If you can do that with webrev, great. If not, then use whatever tools you feel are necessary. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
