On 19/02/2014 21:12, Flaper87 wrote:
2. Approval Process
[...] For example, requiring 2 r+ from 2 different reviewers instead
of 1. This might seem a bit drastic now, however as the number of
contributors grows, this will help with making sure that patches are
reviewed at least by 2 core reviewers and they get enough attention.
I mentioned this on the #rust-internals irc channel but I figured I
should broadcast it here as well:
regarding fractional r+, someone I was talking to recently described
their employer's process, where the first reviewer (who I think is
perhaps part of a priveleged subgroup) assigned the patch with the
number of reviewers it needs so that it isn't a flat "every patch needs
two reviewers" but instead, someone says "this looks like something
big/hairy enough that it needs K reviewers"
just something to consider, if we're going to look into strengthening
our review process.
Cheers,
-Felix
On 19/02/2014 21:12, Flaper87 wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to share some thoughts with regard to our current test and
approval process. Let me break this thoughts into 2 separate sections:
1. Testing:
Currently, all patches are being tested after they are approved.
However, I think it would be of great benefit for contributors - and
reviewers - to test patches before and after they're approved. Testing
the patches before approval will allow folks proposing patches -
although they're expected to test the patches before submitting them -
and reviewers to know that the patch is indeed mergeable. Furthermore,
it will help spotting corner cases, regressions that would benefit
from a good discussion while the PR is hot.
I think we don't need to run all jobs, perhaps just Windows, OSx and
Linux should be enough for a first test phase. It would also be nice
to run lint checks, stability checks etc. IIRC, GH's API should allow
us to notify this checks failures.
2. Approval Process
I'm very happy about how patches are reviewed. The time a patch waits
before receiving the first comment is almost 0 seconds and we are
spread in many patches. If we think someone else should take a look at
some patch, we always make sure to mention that person.
I think the language would benefit from a more strict approval
process. For example, requiring 2 r+ from 2 different reviewers
instead of 1. This might seem a bit drastic now, however as the number
of contributors grows, this will help with making sure that patches
are reviewed at least by 2 core reviewers and they get enough attention.
I think both of these points are very important now that we're moving
towards 1.0 and the community keeps growing.
Thoughts? Feedback?
--
Flavio (@flaper87) Percoco
http://www.flaper87.com
http://github.com/FlaPer87
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
--
irc: pnkfelix on irc.mozilla.org
email: {fklock, pnkfelix}@mozilla.com
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
