Andrei Alexandrescu, el 21 de August a las 10:53 me escribiste: > On 8/21/12 9:21 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >I think ideally somebody should review your commits, but if you've been > >offered commit rights, then it's implied you don't *need* review (nobody > >reviews Walter commits, not at least before they are pushed to the > >repo). Again, it would be ideal if somebody else review the patch, but > >I don't think it should be a blocker. > > > >But that's just *my* POV and I have no idea what does it mean for Walter > >to give commit rights (I guess is push rights in git terminology). > > The way it works for us at Facebook is that every line of code must > be reviewed by another engineer than the one who wrote it. It is > working very well for us. > > There are many positive consequences to this. If the rule were not > in effect, I suspect the notion of "this code is mine" and "that > code is yours" would immediately emerge. With peer review enforced > it becomes clear that once a pull request is merged, it is owned by > the entire team.
I know, I agree and every serious project that I know of (open source or otherwise) does that. I'm just saying this is not how DMD works *now* (nobody can review Walter's code now). The only authoritative reviewer now is Walter because is the only one that can commit. I really wonder why do you usually write the same people say as if they were saying the opposite... -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- La esperanza es una amiga que nos presta la ilusión. _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
