* Jeff Johnston <jjohn...@redhat.com> [2012-01-27 17:43]: > >How do Linux Tools contributors and committers feel about using it for > >Linux Tools? > > I like the idea of using it for bugzilla submissions. > > Assuming we are appointed approver/verifiers for our components of > expertise, would we be able to push our own fixes quickly?
Yes, one can always give their own code a +2 for emergency fixes. But it's sort of in the spirit of code review to have others review all changes as it spreads knowledge and generally improves code :) > example, it kind of gets in the way if I am forced to review Alex's > changes to the rpm editor where he is the expert. We'd all become experts on everything! Seriously, though, I think we will have to arrange for review days where we clear out the backlog of open reviews. PostgreSQL does something like this with their reviewfests. > Can Hudson be the verifier for these changes (i.e. ensuring the > build and tests succeed)? Hudson would be set to auto-verify all changes and a human wouldn't be involved until Hudson gave its +1. Large version-bumping changes would be a candidate for a quick once over by someone else or even for a self-reviewed +2 IMO. We'll have to work out policies and how to use it. At this point I'm mostly interested in everyone's general feel for it so thanks for the thoughts. Andrew _______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
