2008/8/14 Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Andrew Stitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 15:16 +0100, Aidan Skinner wrote:
>>> I've raised an INFRA ticket to get a 'Ready for review' status in
>>> between 'In Progress' and 'Resolved'.
>>>
>>> I'd quite like to move the Java client and broker to a
>>> review-then-commit model, with any one committer other than the author
>>> being sufficent.
>>
>> 1. I assume this is intended for changes to released code.
>
> I was kinda thinking for all the Java stack actually. We don't do much
> that is entirely new development.
>

Personally I think in general it is good to have some form of
acknowledged review of all code that gets committed.  Since we do not
operate a policy of benevolent dictators who review all before
committing I support the step of having a documented review step in
the JIRA process.

>> 2. Without actually commiting the change the reviewer doesn't easily get
>> to see the change, and no I don't consider attached patches to be
>> adequate with svn.
>
> Why not? Is it just the rebasing problem?
>
> Personally I'd prefer small branches that can be reviewed then merged,
> but I don't think that's realistic until and unless we move to
> $DVCS[1].
>

I don't think review then commit is going to work personally.  For a
start you now have a three way exchange before a commit can be made
(put on JIRA... get reveiwed... wait for OK... commit)...  and the
latency introduced will generate a much greater chance of patches
failing due to conflicts...   While I agree a git based source control
system would make this feasible... we are not in such a world.  The
majority continue to use subversion and that is the system Apache is
providing us.

-- Rob

> - Aidan
>
> [1] For $DVCS == git, as it is clearly superior to bzr and hg in crucial ways
> --
> Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
> http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
> "Nine-tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time." - Theodore Roosevelt
>

Reply via email to