On October 22, 2010, Julian Edwards wrote: > On Friday 22 October 2010 04:02:41 Robert Collins wrote: > > I do like the idea of catching problems early, but let's do that > > explicitly: I will review *all* unreviewed landings (other than ones I > > do) in the two weeks, and if I land anything unreviewied, someone else > > - say jml - can review those. > > > > - javascript reviews > > > > - sure, let's leave them out of scope > > Can anyone remember why we abandoned [r=trivial] ?
We abandoned trivial because developers (and some non-regular developer) were landing non-trivial change using that tag. Sometime to get by the deadline. It was felt at the time that if a branch was trivial, getting a review for it shouldn't take long. So we made it a requirements that all branches are reviewed. Like I said elsewhere, a lot of things changed since that time. And now the criteria isn't that it's trivial, but getting a review for the branch wouldn't bring value in respect to the costs. > > >From what I remember of it, we seemed to use it for more than just > >"trivial" > > branches; i.e. mechanical changes etc., and I reckon what we were doing > back then is not too dissimilar to Rob's proposal. > -- Francis J. Lacoste [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
