On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> This has not always been true in the past. I think we (people working on > Chromium) made a good effort to help bring real code review infrastructure > to WebKit and that was a disaster (though maybe I don't know the full story > and we were in the wrong). > Sounds like us vs them again. >From what I saw in this case, things were done quickly without getting buy in. I saw at least one irc conversation in which folks had expressed their concerns about being asked about changes and then things done in less than an hour without giving time for a response. From this, it appeared to me that the effort may not have been handled in the best way. I have seen several WebKit reviewers who appear to be willing to consider a new code review tool, but there are lot of things to fix in the process, and there are a fair number of concerns about how some new would fit into the WebKit process. There was an email that outlined an approach to addressing process issues in WebKit, and it had evaluating new code review tools in there. I have also seen folks try to push chromium solutions on webkit in cases where it didn't make sense. This reminds me of the debates of git vs svn (or emacs vs vi, etc.). Each has their potential advantages, but adopting something new requires changes that may be painful so change takes time. Dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
