On 3/22/11 6:05 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: >Our code review tool is pretty nice, but we can't let it > be the tail that wags the dog.
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.) It happens to be our home grown tool, and it uses a framework that more of us are familiar with. But it's not such an overwhelming asset that we should consider staying on SVN because of it. In 2011 there are lots of code review frameworks out there to choose from. > I believe that once the reviewers get the hang of Git, they'll be more > efficient, and be more capable of keeping up. I think paired with > Neil's proposal[1] that we switch to pre-commit reviews, and we might > actually be able to get back on a regular release cycle. I have to confess this is my main interest in at least re-examining our source control situation. Git doesn't necessarily make pre-commit code review easier, but as a side effect it will allow us to consider other options. If you don't believe me about pre-commit code review, ask any of your friends who work for (or who have worked for) Google. Even people who were very skeptical will usually say that it is has been a huge benefit. -- Neil Kandalgaonkar (| <ne...@wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
