On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 4:44 PM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:40 AM Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > > > Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, 22 Apr 2021 21:41 +00:00: > > > Not knowing whether / how many people have reviewed a particular > > > commit is, as was said elsewhere, a silent failure mode of the CTR > > > (commit-then-review) convention. > > > > > > Do we want to try switching to a RTC (review-then-commit) convention? > > > > If we do switch to RTC, we might want to also retroactively ensure all > > commits post 1.14.x's branching have been reviewed by at least two pairs > > of eyes each. > > > > However, I wonder whether there's a smaller change we can do first, > > rather than a full-blown s/CTR/RTC/ flag day. For instance, how > > about we agree, for the next N weeks, to make our commit reviews > > explicit? I.e., to explicitly say "I've reviewed this commit and > > found no issues"? (Call this Commit-Then-Explicit-Review.) > > I'm +1 to this idea. It sounds to me like a reasonable middle ground > to gain some insights before making bigger workflow-altering changes.
I'm doubtful that this will improve our bus factor for reviews, except perhaps by drawing in some more reviewer-attention by seeing more of it on the list. So far I'm mostly seeing reviews by DanielSh and Nathan. Switching from CTR to CTER (or to RTC) will not really change that. It might change the _potential impact_ of DanielSh being hit by a bus (mainly that Nathan's commits will get stuck in "no explicit review by someone else" (CTER) vs. "on trunk but reviewed by no one else" (CTR)). Okay, with CTR this is less visible at first, and might bite us much harder later on, but we'll have a big problem in any case if one of our few remaining volunteers loses the ability / energy / time / interest to do their bit. IMHO the only thing that can really help is attracting more active contributors who are willing and able to spend some of their precious time on the development of Subversion. -- Johan
