I've chatted in the last few reviewers meetings about the review process, costs / benefits, what we want from it and so on.
But thats all pretty vague stuff; I've got a specific experiment in mind that I think will at worst teach us what we value in reviews more clearly (e.g. for me its knowing that other folk can understand what I've done - I have problematic conceptual stuff hammered out way in advance). https://dev.launchpad.net/PolicyAndProcess/OptionalReviews describes this experiment. Just like intensive experience with TDD helps one learn whether a given change needs a test or doesn't, and what tests, experience with code reviews should have taught us what things are a net thing to have reviews on, which are a net loss and so on. To save you needing to click through, here is the meat from the wiki page: --- Process Overview Some reviews are not needed and eligible developers can choose to have branches land without formal review. Process Description Developers which are contributing at or near fulltime to Launchpad can, after 3 months, choose to land branches without review. Each month, all code reviewers will be assigned one unreviewed landed to do a post hoc review as part of assessing the experiment. Production problems which are tracked to unreviewed landings will also be input into assessing the experiment. Rationale Not all changes benefit from code review / are high enough risk to need formal review. For instance (not exhaustive): mechanical things (like moving code) updating source deps rollbacks typo fixes improvements to documentation For many of these things a review may add value - but less value than doing the review uses up. We want reviews to be a net win for the effort being put into developing Launchpad, and so we should, once we're comfortable people know how things should be, allow them to decide if a particular change is an improvement on its own, or an improvement that also /needs/ other input before landing. Triggers Experienced developer (someone currently working on LP who has been doing so for the last 3 months) landing a code change (not UI or Database, for now : evaluate after assessing the success of optional code reviews). Activities Submit the branch to create an MP (our toolchains can look at this and it provides a location for a post landing review if the branch has that done to it). Self review with review type 'unreviewed'. Land via the normal landing process. --- What do you think? -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
