2008/8/16 Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I suspect that we would keep up with it for a while, but once the > initial surge of enthusiasm wears off it would build up and start to > become problematic. I could be wrong, but that's been my experience in > the past, both on this project and on others. It's basically what's > happened with the weekly calls.
I think the weekly calls for reviewing stuff was a poor approach doomed from the start - reviewing things on conference calls is awful at the best of times, and collective accountability generally results in no accountability. Once the process is integrated into the jira workflow (and this applies to either pre or post commit review), there will be a name in the frame so I think it is a different case. >> of people getting paid to work on this project so those organisations >> should be able to insist their staff follow the process. > > All committers should follow the processes we agree here, regardless > of their employer. One Team, One Project, One Dream. ;) The point is not that people follow different processes but that if you built up a number of outstanding review items your boss can tell you to do the reviews immediately. > If svn gets better merging, that's great, and will make > review-then-commit easier, since people can just take feature branches > if they really, really need to get patches out of their tree and don't > want to use git-svn. Hurrah! Yes, it will be interesting to see if svn ever manages to make the merge support good enough to make branch/merge a feasible strategy. RG
