On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Matthew Toseland <matt...@toselandcs.co.uk> wrote: > > Most of the above boils down to "review the diff, not the history". That > is probably sensible. >
That's part of it, but also that a branch should be created for each bugfix/feature, which ideally should be as small a unit of work as possible (that can be merged without breaking stuff). > The last point is "everyone can commit anything without review". That's > the fundamental question here: Do we want to require that some > responsible person (release manager, person with push rights) reviews > and signs off on the code before it is pushed? > I think the question is moot, since (so far as I'm aware) we don't have anyone that can commit to reviewing all code reliably and quickly, so such a requirement would only serve to create a severe bottleneck in our development process. All commits are public, all commits can be reviewed by anyone, but in the event that nobody is in a position to review something we can't allow development to grind to a halt. If people care about reviewing code then they can and should review code. Ian. > > There are 2 main reasons for this: > 1. Security. How useful this is is debatable. > 2. Disruptive changes to APIs. > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl@freenetproject.org > https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -- *Ian Clarke* / Co-Founder & CTO *OneSpot, Inc* Email: i...@onespot.com Web: http://www.onespot.com Personal Blog: http://blog.locut.us/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/iancjclarke Twitter: http://twitter.com/sanity _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
