Στις 01-06-2011, ημέρα Τετ, και ώρα 15:58 -0600, ο/η bawolff έγραψε: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Brion Vibber <br...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, bawolff <bawolff...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> As a volunteer person, I'm fine if code I commit is reverted based on > >> it sucking, being too complicated, being too ugly, etc provided there > >> is actually some objection to the code. However, I'd be rather > >> offended if it was reverted on the basis of no one got around to > >> looking at in the last 3 days, since that is something essentially out > >> of my control. > > > > When someone looks at your commit within ~72 hours and reverts it because > > nobody's yet managed to figure out whether it works or not and it needs more > > research and investigation... what was the reason for the revert? > > > > Because 'no one reviewed it'? Or because someone looked at it and decided it > > needed more careful review than they could give yet? > > > > -- brion > > > > That's fine. I'm only concerned with the possibility of no one looks > at the commit, and it gets summarily reverted (Which is what I thought > was being proposed). > > --bawolff
One question is how thorough is thorough: if the code is reviewed for security issues and doesn't apparently break things, does it need to get gone over with a fine toothed comb before we accept it for deployment? I would say no, and that we could live with "the commit adheres to our basic coding guidelines, looks like it will generally do what it says (without necessarily having tested every detail personally), and follows general usage patterns (appropriate use of hooks, cacheing, i18n, etc. etc.)". Can we ensure that folks have (now and ongoing) enough available time to review commits to trunk at that level within 72 hours? This means buy-in from reviewers *and from their managers* that they have X time for this and that time will not get reassigned to other priorities. If we can't ensure this, we need to decide on the minimum level of review we *can* get done, or extend the time period, or both. Asking all committers to trunk to guess whether their reviewer can or cannot make the 72-hour window for their commit seems like a recipe for pissing people off. Just my two cents. Ariel P.S. Oh and for the record I would like 4 releases a year ideally, I could live with 3, and I would be pretty unhappy with two. Deployment from trunk should happen a lot more often. I don't know if we can manage weekly, but it's a good target. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
