Brice wrote: > One thing that I noticed is important is sharing some knowledge. It
> already happened when testing that I find a bug that in fact your team > already fixed, but that I either missed or wasn't pushed. I hate > duplicated efforts :) > Agreed. We're also pushing to do the same thing with tickets and ticket related info; instead of "Hey, I found a bug" / "Oh I can fix that" (type type type) "Ok, it's on my github" conversations in the office or in directed emails were pushing to have the action take place on tickets. We'd like to have the tickets be a clear, reasonably detailed, historically accurate account of what has (and hasn't) been done. One thing that we don't have a good answer for is code review on the list. It isn't just a matter of some code not going to the list, though that's part of it. There seems to be several additional problems: 1) a lot of code that does go to the list isn't getting reviewed, probably because no one feels competent to review it 2) code that does get reviewed often is reviewed on intent or style rather than on functionality / design 3) some changes are just too complex to review in this way We don't have ready answers for these. -- Markus ----------------------------------------------------------- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. ~George Bernard Shaw ------------------------------------------------------------ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
