On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > And almost everyone subscribes to the mailing list. > > > > That doesn't mean that everyone finds it easy to trawl through > > comments interspersed with file diffs. I know change is traumatic, > > but anything we can do to make it easier for people to participate in > > development is a good thing. Can you at least try it? > > Mailing lists work well for our review process, which is opportunistic review > (except for myself and to some degree nextgens). Once an issue has been > raised, everyone, including and especially those who aren't part of the > regular code review process, can see what the issue is. > > This is the opposite of CodeCollaborator: it is designed for a formal review > process where a group of people are pre-selected to review every commit. It > does not work well when most of your coders are volunteers who do not have > the time to review everything. > > At least that was my impression. Is it totally misguided?
Well, we aren't talking about CodeCollaborator any more, we are taking about Google Code's built-in code review tools. So far as I can tell, it is perfectly equipped to support opportunistic code reviews, there are no constraints about who must review what. You just look at the list of revisions, if one looks good - vote for it, if not, vote against and explain why. Ian. -- Email: ian at uprizer.com Cell: +1 512 422 3588 Skype: sanity
