On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Friedemann Kleint <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > >- Have an "API review board", and for > > A review board would indeed be a good thing to have, not necessarily > restricted to API reviews only. > > The problem also currently is that reviewers are distracted by a lot of > mundane things (check for compilation, compiler warnings, check > indentation style, style issues, check for potential performance issues, > messages, spelling, functionality smoke testing, checking autotests...), > potentially over quite a few review rounds.
Actually, my thought about the API review board is that those reviewers, when pulled in, are looking only at the API. They can ignore all that other stuff, leaving it for someone else to review, and just leave their +1 if the API is good. Or a +2 if another developer already checked the implementation part. > If there was a review board (supported by more automated testing) making > sure each change passes all those criteria before a developer gets to > see it, it would be a lot easier to focus on the API. > One thing's for sure, if we have a review board we need a clear policy on whether to call them in first or second. -- Alan Alpert _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
