Re: [Wikitech-l] Meaning of fixme (Re: code review criticism (Re: Converting to Git?))
Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote in message news:imm5c2$rib$1...@dough.gmane.org... Ilmari Karonen wrote: I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave fixme for the latter and add a new broken status for the former. +1 We should also add another state for fixmes that are not about problems in the revision itself, but request for improving more code (eg. you should fix the same thing -added in MW 1.4- in other 10 locations of the code, too). That sort of thing should be a tag, because it is orthogonal to (and can actually change independently of) the status of the revision itself. It would make it impossible to 'ok' the revision without losing the 'extend' information, which is exactly the opposite of what we want. --HM ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Meaning of fixme (Re: code review criticism (Re: Converting to Git?))
Happy-melon wrote: Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote in message news:imm5c2$rib$1...@dough.gmane.org... Ilmari Karonen wrote: I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave fixme for the latter and add a new broken status for the former. +1 We should also add another state for fixmes that are not about problems in the revision itself, but request for improving more code (eg. you should fix the same thing -added in MW 1.4- in other 10 locations of the code, too). That sort of thing should be a tag, because it is orthogonal to (and can actually change independently of) the status of the revision itself. It would make it impossible to 'ok' the revision without losing the 'extend' information, which is exactly the opposite of what we want. --HM Right. We should use an improve tag and stop using fixmes for that. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Meaning of fixme (Re: code review criticism (Re: Converting to Git?))
Ilmari Karonen wrote: This made me realize something that's only tangentially related to the existing thread, namely that we're currently using the fixme status in Code Review for two different kinds of commits: 1. commits that are broken and need to be fixed or reverted ASAP, and 2. commits that do more or less work, but need some followup work. An example of the first kind of commit would be something that throws PHP fatal errors on a substantial fraction of page views. An example of the second kind might be something as minor as forgetting to update RELEASE_NOTES. Of course, there's also a wide range of shades of gray between these two extremes, such as changes that work most of the time but break some unusual setups or use cases. Still, I do think that most fixme commits can be fairly cleanly assigned to one or the other of these categories, simply by asking oneself Can I run a usable wiki with this code as it is? I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave fixme for the latter and add a new broken status for the former. +1 We should also add another state for fixmes that are not about problems in the revision itself, but request for improving more code (eg. you should fix the same thing -added in MW 1.4- in other 10 locations of the code, too). ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Meaning of fixme (Re: code review criticism (Re: Converting to Git?))
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Ilmari Karonen nos...@vyznev.net wrote: On 03/24/2011 08:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote: * We need to set a clear policy for reverting problematic revisions (fixme's) if they aren't addressed quickly enough (again, let's say within a week). Currently we largely leave them be, but I think we should go back to something more decisive and closer to the keep trunk runnable, or else Brion kicks your ass paradigm and make it a bit more formal this time This made me realize something that's only tangentially related to the existing thread, namely that we're currently using the fixme status in Code Review for two different kinds of commits: 1. commits that are broken and need to be fixed or reverted ASAP, and 2. commits that do more or less work, but need some followup work. An example of the first kind of commit would be something that throws PHP fatal errors on a substantial fraction of page views. An example of the second kind might be something as minor as forgetting to update RELEASE_NOTES. Of course, there's also a wide range of shades of gray between these two extremes, such as changes that work most of the time but break some unusual setups or use cases. Still, I do think that most fixme commits can be fairly cleanly assigned to one or the other of these categories, simply by asking oneself Can I run a usable wiki with this code as it is? I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave fixme for the latter and add a new broken status for the former. Of course, we really shouldn't expect to have any broken commits in CR at any given time, since they really should be reverted and marked as such by the first person who can do so. But I think that being able to mark a commit as broken and needing a revert, even if you can't revert it yourself just then for some reason (no time, no svn access, whatever), could be a good idea. It would also make it less likely for such commits to get lost (even temporarily) among the less urgent fixmes. (Ps. I'd also like to note that I very much agree with what Roan wrote in general, and I'd very much like to see us going back to something like the system he proposed. +1.) +1 to everything Roan said and +1 to everything above. -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
