John Darrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 01:23:41PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Let me elaborate. I've watched three different systems of code > reviews in some detail:
[...] > Have you looked at the way aegis works? One of its features is that > it can require code reviews before anything gets checked in. The > review policy is configureable according to the enterprise's needs. I don't want to enforce code reviews. I want them to be optional, but useful enough that contributors choose to get them done voluntarily. If they are not useful, then we shouldn't waste our time on them. > > The "code reviews" conducted at any commercial organisations with > > which I've been involved, have been a joke. Nobody had the > > time/competance/inclination to do them. Consequently, if there were > > done at all, they were simply a beaurocratic exercise. > > It sounds like your own experiences with code reviews have been > the opposite of mine. I'm sorry to hear that; they can be really > good things. > > I didn't mean to sound quite so negative. I agree that code reviews > can help. But I've seen so many software houses, where (usually to > justify a claim of compliance to ISO-9001 and/or CFR 21.11) the > directive is given "henceforth all software changes must be reviewed > (and recorded in form XYZ)". It didn't improve software quality and > just became an administrative burden. Ugh. I would not want to work in such an environment. > I like the idea that author of the patch gets to make the decision to > review/not to review, and to accept or decline suggestions from the > reviews. I think it's also a good idea to suggest that patches which > have not been reviewed after say 7 days can be automatically committed > at the author's discretion. Sure. -- "GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them." --Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
