On Feb 24, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > I systematically mark my fixes as ReviewNeeded because a second pair > of eyes don't hurt.
Yes I love to read other code. - just in this moment I have too many jobs (second of lab, head of team, pushing company…) > But this seems to be yet another bottleneck. > Taking responsibility to review might seem scary and involving > especially when changes touch obscure/complex part of the system. > > So maybe the review could take lighter, more or less automated forms: > - does automated integration reports a regression ? > - does the bug report gives enough technical solution details or a > good rationale ? > - are there some tests provided ? Indeed. > Maybe you could handle a confidence score per developer. with a priori > and a posteriori informations. > Like "good solution, but the integrator had more work to finish the job"… Yes :) > On the other hand, Pharo claims the right to do some mistakes (and > soon correct them), so maybe this review phase could be relaxed a bit. It is. We want to totally change the process We want to use Ulyss to automatically load code and report > And one thing I still ask for is a diff log for each SLICE posted in > the inbox, entirely browsable from the issue tracker or from the bug > list, because to review you need: > - to read issue tracker report > - AND to inspect the changes with Monticello merge in a recent clean image... > Having the diff would be a great economy for the reviewers. > Or maybe this already happened? the problem is that squeak source suffered. But yes this would be great. > Maybe the report generated by Monticello that pops up once the package > commited, could contain such diff that we would manually copy/past in > the bug entry. Would that be cheap enough ? > > Nicolas > > Le 24 février 2012 08:30, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> >> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/list?can=2&q=status%3AFixReviewNeeded >> >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de >> >> >
