Just wanted to recommend reviewboard for code review. Really, really nice. On May 28, 2011 12:57 AM, "Sam Spilsbury" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Everyone (again). > > I'd like to mandate a process of code review before anything gets > committed into a "maintained" module by at least the module maintainer > or other interested people. The reason I want to do this is because > we've seen a high volume of commits to core (mostly my fault) and this > can cause instability due to general programmatic errors that happen > from time to time. The other reason I want to do this is because as > outlined in my previous mail, I cannot be the compiz maintainer > forever, and I believe that forcing my code to go through review from > other people first will give external contributors who are interested > in compiz a better idea of how the code works because they've seen it > being changed. > > I understand that in this community there has been some resistance to > pre-commit review, namely because it slows down the devleopment > process. However, I believe that the project has reached a point where > we don't want to be changing core all the time and the changes that we > often do make to core and changes that can affect very easily the > stability of the rest of the stack. I also believe that given some > infrastructure advances we've seen over the past year in terms of > launchpad code reviews and pull requests on github and others, that > this is now a lot easier than it used to be. > > The question then becomes how we're going to do it. I see 4 options > > 1) Sync our code hosting with launchpad and do reviews through > launchpad before pushing them to upstream git. > > 2) Have a synced git repository on github and do pull requests to that > and then when changes are pushed there they are mirrored back upstream > (effectively changes our hosting to github) > > 3) Send patches around on the ML (bad) > > 4) Write our own code review system / deploy our own on git.compiz.org > if there are any > > I think that 3 & 4 are probably not really worth considering unless > someone has a fantastic idea about how that could work. I think that > we could probably do a merged system of 1 & 2, since I'd like to get > the people on the Unity end of things to review my code before it goes > upstream. However, for all external contributors, I'm happy to have a > code review system for them that is separate from that. > > Let me know what you all think, > > Regards, > > Sam > > -- > Sam Spilsbury > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.compiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.compiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
