[Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Mike Hearn
Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things. Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things. I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces of work for review, please

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Andy Parkins
On Friday 04 October 2013 12:30:07 Mike Hearn wrote: Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things. Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things. I'd like to make a small request - when

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Mike Hearn
There is more to a git branch than just the overall difference. Every single log message and diff is individually valuable. When the log messages don't accurately describe the contents of the diff, it's just misinformation and noise. Everyone starts out by wanting a neat collection of easy

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Peter Todd
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:42:29AM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote: On Friday 04 October 2013 12:30:07 Mike Hearn wrote: Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things. Unfortunately, code review is not one

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Peter Todd
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:30:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things. Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things. I'd like to make a small request - when

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Mike Hearn
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: When I'm reviewing multiple commit pull-requests and want to see every change made, I always either click on the Files Changed tab on github, which collapses every commit into a single diff, or do the equivalent with git

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Peter Todd
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:58:51PM +0200, Arto Bendiken wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: The second caveat is more specific to Bitcoin: people tend to rebase their pull-requests over and over again until they are accepted, but that also means that

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:14:19PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: One advantage of using github is that they're an independent third party; we should think carefully about the risks of furthering the impression that Bitcoin development is a closed process by moving the code review it to a server

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Arto Bendiken
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: The second caveat is more specific to Bitcoin: people tend to rebase their pull-requests over and over again until they are accepted, but that also means that code review done earlier doesn't apply to the later code pushed.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Andy Parkins
On Friday 04 October 2013 13:32:47 you wrote: There is more to a git branch than just the overall difference. Every single log message and diff is individually valuable. When the log messages don't accurately describe the contents of the diff, it's just misinformation and noise.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Andy Parkins
On Friday 04 October 2013 07:35:17 you wrote: Remember that every individual commit is two things: what source code has changed, and a message explaining why you thought that change should be made. Commits aren't valuable in of themselves, they're valuable because they serve to explain to the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

2013-10-04 Thread Gavin Andresen
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces of work for review, please either submit it as one giant squashed change, or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logically clean and separated.