: What shall be the procedure of peer review of CMS website changes? Is it : examine patches in JIRA just like source code is, or is it to commit changes : and observe them on the staging server http://lucene.staging.apache.org/ ? : (or perhaps it depends)
"it depends" the biggest value of hte CMS is making small rapid changes -- just like small bug fixes, you shouldn't need peer review to make small tweaks, if people don't like it they can revert. If you are making seriously large substantial changes (ie: "i think we should completley re-org the site like this...") then i think patches in Jira make sense ...both of thse situations are just like they use to be in the forrest days from a review process. the new middle ground we have is the "staging site" ... if you have a change that you think is simple and not relaly worth a prolonged discussion over a patch, but you'd still like to have at least one other set of eyeballs on, edit it and push it to staging -- then ask for review on email/irc. worst case scenerio someone else comes along to make a minor edit and sees your changes on staging ... which is an automatic review if they then choose to "publish" both their changes and yours. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
