On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote: > On Thursday, January 2, 2014 10:39:13 AM UTC-8, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> >> So I would propose that every *commit* that goes into Sage needs to be >> positively reviewed. > > In which case we'd want a lot more history discarding/rewriting to happen > before a commit gets positive review. Wouldn't we be back at the hg workflow > with patches, with patches replaced by git commits?
No. Given a history master -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E, where A+B belongs to ticket 1 and C+D+E belongs to ticket 2, reviewing ticket 2 could involve looking at the diff B..E and calling it good (giving a positive review to the sequence B -> C -> D -> E). Of course, sometimes looking at C -> D and D -> E separately can be helpful too. Also, if D -> E is a bunch of new doctests, someone could review that without reviewing B -> D if they were short on time or expertise, sharing the load. I take back what I said about sets, every commit should be reviewed as part of a sequence, so if B -> E is reviewed and the ticket gets changed to B -> D, the positive review should no longer hold (though if D -> E is small it should be pretty easy to re-review B -> D). Every commit that goes into Sage needs to be positively reviewed, either directly or indirectly as part of a series ending in a positively reviewed commit. - Robert -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
