2008/8/15 Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The review process is about discipline, but that's something that's > traditionally somewhat lacking,
Without a workflow that supports it, it is definitely likely to slip. > and I think review-then-commit > actually requires less discipline, and the majority of it is focussed > on the person with the biggest stake (the person writing the patch). The issue I have is that with the current toolset it is a pain and I know I would hate dealing with patch files on jiras. People will want the code committed so that things can progress (like dependent changes etc) and if there is any delay we may get into an annoying merge cycle. > This should make it more likely that process is followed. I think we could determine how effective it is by monitoring the number of issues in the "review pending" state. We have a good number of people getting paid to work on this project so those organisations should be able to insist their staff follow the process. >> If we had a different SCM tool then maybe we would do it differently. >> As another aside I see that svn 1.5.x does improve the merging >> capabilities so maybe at last things will get better with that tool. > > svnmerge in 1.5 is better, but it's still nowhere up to the standards > of a proper DVCS (it still loses history, for one thing) My point was that at last it's making progress in this area. I haven't tested it out myself yet although I shall be doing so in the next couple of weeks. RG
