----- Original Message ----- > > 1) We have adopted peer code reviews as common practice for all > > non-trivial changes going into Asterisk. This alone has _greatly_ > > increased the quality of the code going in. It is rare that a patch > > goes up for review where someone doesn't point out some sort of > > problem. These problems are found and fixed _much_ faster in the up > > front review process than if it had been many months later when > > someone encountered it as a bug in the field.
> Agree. But it also puts a significant delay on the process. We have to > be very careful about that. Having too many branches open in addition > to this was a pain. With fewer branches I hope it will get better. Fewer branches should help, but the fact the bar is raised on getting patches in due to the peer code review process is no different. There will always be problems with the code developers write. I view it as if there is a problem in the code, it is _much_ less expensive to get it resolved in up front peer review as much as possible than later on once users encounter a bug, report it, developers debug, fix, and test. That's the tradeoff. -- Russell Bryant Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager, Open Source Software 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA www.digium.com -=- www.asterisk.org -=- blogs.asterisk.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
