On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a practical idea but I'd be a little concerned about the time cost of > this prior to release i.e. potentially reviewing months of commits ? (I know > we've gotten far better at regular releases, but really they're still pretty > infrequent and usually take a while in the cooking.) I've got several concerns about this. Reviewing code weeks or months after the person wrote it inevitably leads to exchanges along the lines of "why is it like this?" "that's a very good question... it's been a while since I wrote this...". On a related note, it is much more difficult to remediate problems when there's been a large gap between commit and review. Big chunks of reviews lead to individual patches getting less scrutiny in terms of both time and quality of review. If you have a big pile of stuff to review it will be sped through and feel like a chore, which isn't really what we want. Ultimately though, I just don't think it'll happen. Given what's happened so far, what I think is far more likely is that people just won't get to it, we won't want to delay the release and they'll get, at best, a perfunctory review. - Aidan -- 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
