"Brion Vibber" <br...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:BANLkTikTz=V77o8vYMxbA91dj=PNNbvO=w...@mail.gmail.com... > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Aryeh Gregor > <simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com >> wrote: > >> So then what happens if volunteers' contributions aren't reviewed >> promptly? > > > Indeed, this is why we need to demonstrate that we can actually push code > through the system on a consistent basis... until we can, nobody seems > willing to trust pre-commit review. > > -- brion
+1. Pre-commit-review, post-commit-lifetime, branching, testing, whatever; all of the suggestions I've seen so far are IMO doomed to fail because they do not fix the underlying problem that not enough experienced manhours are being dedicated to Code Review for the amount of work (not the 'number of commits', the amount of *energy* to make changes to code) in the system. A pre-commit-review system doesn't reduce the amount of work needed to get a feature into deployment, it just changes the nature of the process. At the moment revisions sit unloved in trunk until they fossilise in; in that system with the current balance of time they would sit unloved in a bugzilla thread or branch until they bitrot into oblivion. There *are* strategies that could be implemented (like the review-and-super-review processes used by Mozilla) that *can* streamline the process, but as has been said elsewhere, that *still* needs top-level direction. The members of Foundation staff who consistently get involved with these discussions do generally seem only to have hold of the deckchairs, not the wheelhouse. --HM _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
