Hi Mikhail, I do not quite get what you're suggesting? Submit prototype code before design (intent to implement)?
As for the #3 part, I think we already follow the review-rework cycle until get LGTM. Thanks, Halton. > -----Original Message----- > From: Crosswalk-dev > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Pozdnyakov, Mikhail > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 10:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Crosswalk-dev] Accelerating the review process > > Hi there, > > Ming Bai and me had recently a discussion about accelerating the review > process (which is sometimes quite painful and time-consuming at the > moment). > > We have ended up with some notes/proposals that as I guess can be > shared among the other developers > > 1) Basic rule is that all the essential issues should be pointed out ASAP > during the initial review and then the corrected code won't take too much > time to check before merging (it is supposed to contain only minor issues). > > 2) However, sometimes it is pretty hard to follow up the item #1, especially > if patch contains implementation of a new feature. It might take several > iterations to figure out an appropriate design for the new functionality > (You would agree that making sure that the intended design is good (and > often guiding on making an appropriate design) is the most important and > the most difficult part of code review) > > 3) In order to resolve the item#2 we're proposing the following > procedure: > > we split our review-modify process into two steps, first, we push the > code, which may be WIP but enough for getting a whole picture of the > design, > then we could start the review -- only focusing on the design until all the > following patches are uploaded and the design is good. Then we could > start the > next step, to address the minor issue and fix it. We could write some > comments > in the PR to indicate which step we are currently in, for example like > "okay > ,let's start to review the design." Or "The design is okay for me, so let's > start to > figure out the minor issues" and in the end, "LGTM if those minor issues > are > fixed.", and we'll give comments like "Please review the design." Or "I've > fixed > the minor issues, please have a look if it's good to merge?" I believe the > more > we developers and reviewers know about each other's progress, the > more > efficient we would be. > > Please tell what you think about the proposals above. > > BR, > Mikhail > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Finland Oy > Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki Business Identity Code: > 0357606 - 4 Domiciled in Helsinki > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the > sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others > is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact > the sender and delete all copies. > > _______________________________________________ > Crosswalk-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev _______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
