On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Roan Kattouw <roan.katt...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/7/21 Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com>: >> I'm also not sure how Code Review will handle a repository handling a >> subset of another >> repository. I'm pretty sure things will be ok, I only imagine it would >> just duplicate data >> (revs for SMW stuff would be imported for both repos). Still should be >> tested first though. >> Then we would need someone with repoadmin rights to set this up, I >> believe Brion or >> Tim can. >> > Why would you want to do this? With the path search feature, it's > extremely easy to pull up a list of revs touching a certain extension. > I really don't see why the SMW review queue has to be separate from > the main MW review queue on a technical level; of course it would be > on a personal level, in that different people review different things, > but we have that already for e.g. UsabilityInitiative. In practical > terms, people who are familiar with the SMW codebase would start > reviewing SMW revisions through our existing CodeReview setup, and the > only thing we would have to do on a technical level is make sure those > paths don't get auto-deferred. > > Roan Kattouw (Catrope) > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >
I agree with you here. They were just suggesting another route. Honestly, I don't really care either way :) The fix in r69675 is generally useful though, if repositories were segemented in that manner. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
