On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 23:06 +0100, Robert Greig wrote: > 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
+1 to this suggestion
