Hi Guido,
On 08/ 5/11 11:42 PM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Hello,
looking at the first review for oi-build I think it is suboptimal
that changes put up for review are already committed, changes
requested by reviewers can lead to a number of additional commits
which show up in the master repo and make changes more difficult
to follow, furthermore I would find it desirable to have
Reviewed-by headers in the commit message documenting our review
process. I'm not familiar with how Bitbucket works but off the
top of my head I can think of a number of solutions, changes
could be kept in MQ during review and then be turned into commits
before integration, there is a histedit Mercurial extension,
there is webrev and there may be further options.
It would also be nice to define some minimum time period for
which stuff is put up for review in order to give interested
parties enough time to look at changes.
Any thoughts/opinions on this?
I was expecting the committer to use "hg pull --no-commit" and pull each
of the changesets from bitbucket, then commit and push to the master
repo - that way there is only one commit per change. In the commit
message it can reference the author + reviewers.
The beauty of using bitbucket is that it makes it really easy for new
less seasoned developers to contribute, and using "--no-commit" solves
the "messy commits" issue.
I don't view MQs or webrevs as viable - they are too fiddley/difficult
for casual contributors. This has to be super easy, and bitbucket is
super easy for people to push changes to.
Cheers,
Alasdair
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
