2008/8/18 Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > That's why having a pool is better, if one person is busy with other > stuff then others can pick up the load. If everybody is crunching like > a maniac, it's probably a sign that careful review is even more > necessary - I know the quality of my patches has an inverse > relationship to the amount of Irn Bru consumed. ;)
I don't like the idea of a pool basically because of the lack of accountability. > I don't think there's a significant difference in the toolset between > commit-then-review and review-then-commit, and certainly not a > compelling one that outweighs the other advantages of reviewing first. OK, FWIW here's what I would do. No review board, just: 1) work on issue and commit changes 2) mail or IM someone asking if he would mind reviewing it 3) assign issue to person doing review and move on until issue is either reopened by reviewer or resolved (or whatever state comes next) 4) run jira report regularly of issues in "pending review" state with no activity for 5 days. For those issues go back to step (2) with alternative reviewer if necessary. I think it would be useful to get some of the other committers' views on what would work for them. RG
