-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20/08/13 01:27, Nate Finch wrote: > I accidentally only replied to John with this earlier: > > I like the shared responsibility and the review of existing code, > but I do lament the loss of that extra pair of eyes on the code. > Even in my short time at Canonical, I have almost always seen the > second review turn up things the first review missed. This is > likely due to each reviewer valuing different things and therefore > looking at those things more carefully, and probably also that the > first one picked up the easy stuff, so the second one could ignore > that and look for more subtle problems. Granted, most of the time > it's not incorrect code, just something that could be tweaked to be > better, but that still gives us higher quality code overall. > > I do think that putting a higher bar on LGTMs is a good thing, and > hopefully that can help keep the quality high.
Well, we have a few things working for us here. We use a DVCS which makes reverting a branch that causes real problems very easy. While this doesn't mean we should be committing just anything, it does mean that we have an extra back-stop. Also, this is just initially a one month experiment, with an end date where we evaluate how things went. Cheers, Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlISi/kACgkQd1fvI4G7WRABdQCdF74H1hCrn5e3+R8dN3AhWb0l WPEAoMTNYJiwJGsyj25LaIhsEnsnc3hY =vz1a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
