It may be good to have a "Ruby" group as there is often stuff that may seem trivial (i.e. dprint or options changes), that I usually defer to the Ruby folks for final approval.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Beckmann, Brad <brad.beckm...@amd.com>wrote: > I suspect that my recent review posts motivated this thread. > > Overall, I think that the policy that you suggested Nate has been our > informal policy. The reason why I posted my somewhat trivial changes to > reviewboard this morning, is to give Tushar a chance to comment on my > changes before I pushed them. Also though one of my patches is a single > line, it will require a new set of regression tester stats. I felt that > that kind of change needed to be highlighted by posting a review. > > Maybe the best policy is to make better use of the -U and -G options of > postreview. I know I'm guilty of not using those options before, but I > really should have specified "-U tushar" for those patches. Right now if > one doesn't specify -U or -G, it is sent to the default group (which is all > of m5-dev, correct?) and gabe, ali, steve, and nate. Even when -U is > specified, it only adds the additional user to the list and doesn't > overwrite gabe, ali, steve, and nate. Instead, maybe we still send patches > to the default group, but remove the current list of four users. That way we > can better customize who are the explicit targets. > > Brad > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: m5-dev-boun...@m5sim.org [mailto:m5-dev-boun...@m5sim.org] > > On Behalf Of Gabriel Michael Black > > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:25 AM > > To: m5-dev@m5sim.org > > Subject: Re: [m5-dev] Code Reviewing > > > > That sounds reasonable. With too many reviews it gets harder to get to > all of > > them, and some obscure things may languish with no reviews because only > > one person is comfortable with that code. Reviews are generally a really > > good thing but they have some overhead. If we don't get more benefit than > > that threshold, they aren't worth it in that case. > > > > Gabe > > > > Quoting nathan binkert <n...@binkert.org>: > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > We don't have an official policy on code reviews, but I think we're > > > being a bit pedantic with them. While I definitely want us to err on > > > the side of having code review is the author has any doubt, I think it > > > is completely unnecessary to have reviews on things like changing > > > comments and text in strings. Similarly, obvious bug fixes (though > > > this is one of those subjective things that the author has to > > > consider) need not be reviewed. > > > > > > What do you all think? What is our policy? Am I crazy? Should we > > > review everything? > > > > > > Nate > > > _______________________________________________ > > > m5-dev mailing list > > > m5-dev@m5sim.org > > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > m5-dev mailing list > > m5-dev@m5sim.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > -- - Korey _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
