On Wed, 30 May 2001, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/code-review-faq.html
A very helpful document!
I have one comment (stolen from hyatt): What if a super-reviewer sees a
patch is flawed, but the patch manages to get r= and sr= through different
people? Ideally this would never happen, but it has. How can
super-reviewers block a check-in? Is there an equivalent of "veto="?
How about other people? Is there a way for me, for instance, to block a
check-in based on a fundamental flaw in the patch, even if it passes r=
and sr= from different people?
Assuming the answer to both is 'no', I would like to propose that super-
reviewers be able to say veto=jsmith. (Other people (like me) would then
be able to ask super-reviewers to veto a patch. I don't think there is any
need for anyone to be able to block check-ins without going through a
respected community member first.)
I also have one minor question. What's the difference between "rs=jsmith"
and "sr=jsmith"? A rubber-stamp still needs a quick look at the code, to
decide if its small enough for being rubber-stamped, right? Or is a rubber
stamp actually a review, with the statement that no super-review is
required? (i.e., is 'rs=x' the equivalent of 'sr=x' or is it the
equivalent of 'r=x, sr=n/a'?) I think the FAQ could be slightly more
explicit about this.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
