+1, review tool seems to be a good thing. Do we have something similar in the Apache environment?
2011/9/28 ChiaHung Lin <[email protected]> > +1 > > But in what way are we going to perform such tasks/ procedure? > > Given a quick search on the internet, there are several tools and methods > employed for this procedure: > > 1.) httpd has voting system that if 3 other developers gave positive (+1) > vote and there are no negative (-1) vote[1]. > > 2.) some linux kernel sub systems use patchwork[2] which tracks/ reports > patches series. > > 3.) Google internally uses Mondrian for code review, which has an open > source version released as Rietveld[3]. > > [1]. Patch Review Processes in Open Source Software Development > Communities: A Comparative Case Study. > http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2007.426 > > [2]. Reducing your patch workload with Patchwork. > http://linuxplumbersconf.org/2011/ocw/proposals/255 > > [3]. Mondrian: Code Review on the Web. > http://code.google.com/p/rietveld/downloads/detail?name=Mondrian2006.pdf > > > > > -----Original message----- > From:Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> > To:[email protected] > Date:Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:41:06 +0200 > Subject:Re: Review then commit > > +1 for me > Tommaso > > 2011/9/27 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> > > > Hi, > > > > Hama committers are on the increase. So it's time to consider the > > development process. > > > > Typically, many apache projects adopt a review-then-commit process. > > > > What do you think? > > > > -- > > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > > @eddieyoon > > > > > -- > ChiaHung Lin > Department of Information Management > National University of Kaohsiung > Taiwan > -- Thomas Jungblut Berlin <[email protected]>
