Neilk wrote:
>> At the risk of being impolite -- our code review tool is not that nice.
>> (I don't expect that anyone who worked on it would even disagree with me
>> here.)
On 24/03/11 06:47, MZMcBride wrote:
> It's only impolite if you criticize the code review tool without being
> constructiv
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> Neilk is realist. Either we bring more developers in the system or we
> drop it and reuse another system already having some developers.
It's sitting there in SVN, nothing is stopping people from working on
it, In fact Sam and Chad might lik
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> - I still have not figured out how to filter by author AND path
Special:Code/MediaWiki/author/hashar?path=/trunk/phase3
or if you only want unreviewed revs:
Special:Code/MediaWiki/status/new?author=hashar&path=/trunk/phase3
The UI still
On 03/24/2011 12:44 AM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> On 24/03/11 06:47, MZMcBride wrote:
> > It's only impolite if you criticize the code review tool without being
> > constructive. What specifically do you not like about the current code
> > review tool?
I agree with most of what Ashar said. Lack
On 03/24/2011 10:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
> Anyway, this is all vague and clearly I'm talking about radical changes
> to the entire MediaWiki community. But I believe it would help quite a bit.
>
> Maybe I should work on it a bit more and present it on a wiki page
> somewhere, as well as in
2011/3/24 Neil Kandalgaonkar :
> - Allows us to deploy trunk. At any time. Eliminate the production
> branch. Any developer in the world should be able to work on the code we
> actually have in production without having to decide between trunk and a
> production branch.
>
You're basically arguing f
On 24/03/11 09:41, K. Peachey wrote:
> It's sitting there in SVN, nothing is stopping people from working on
> it, In fact Sam and Chad might like the help, But your arugment that
> having more developers(/man power) != better working systems.
I am a dev with commit access and could probably sync
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2) Resolving conflicts between patches is done by reviewers when they
> apply them instead of being conveniently outsourced to the
> author-committers
If there's a conflict, the reviewer can ask the patch submitter to
submit a new version wit
I think Roan hits it on the nose. Most of the problems Ashar and Neil raise
are flaws in our code review process, not flaws in the tools we use *to do*
code review. I actually think that CodeReview works quite well, **for the
system we currently use**. I think many of us agree that, one way o
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
> I think Roan hits it on the nose. Most of the problems Ashar and Neil raise
> are flaws in our code review process, not flaws in the tools we use *to do*
> code review. I actually think that CodeReview works quite well, **for the
> system we
On 24/03/11 19:11, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> (still I like our code review software since it feats our actual needs)
Please read: CR fits our actual needs
// Having English lessons is actually on my TODO list.
--
Ashar Voultoiz
__
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Happy-melon wrote:
> *We* write MediaWiki, and we could in principle do
> it in notepad or pico if we wanted (some of us probably do :-D).
I don't think anybody writes in notepad, as notepad inserts UTF byte
order marks at the beginning of a text file ;)
For the r
12 matches
Mail list logo
