On 10/18/2010 09:53 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > 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). >
This sounds like a good experiment to me. +1 An observation: the types of changes listed do not require the same quality of craftsmanship that code does. Sound logic and elegant design are not necessary to accomplish them. -- Māris Fogels -- https://launchpad.net/~mars Launchpad.net -- cross-project collaboration and hosting
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
