Tim Starling wrote:
In the last week, I've been reviewing extensions that were written
years ago, and were never properly looked at. I don't think it's
appropriate to measure success in code review solely by the number of
new revisions after the last branch point.
Code review of
On 26/03/11 14:56, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
So, other than switching to the mythical GIT, where all is rainbows and
roses, what can we do to improve code review now?
It's no mystery. After the 1.17 deployment, the team that was doing
code review was disassembled. If you want code review to
2011/3/28 Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org:
By definition, our volunteer developers have lives outside of
MediaWiki. We have to fit in with their schedules. I don't think we
should give them a kick in the teeth just because they committed
something on Sunday and have to go to school on
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
mhershber...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As far as I can see, the main reason that people think code review
works better under GIT is because the committer is responsible for
getting xyr[2] code reviewed *before* it is merged. The committer is
Tim Starling wrote:
If the code review manpower is there, we can be friendly and
encouraging to our developers, not threaten them with a revert unless
they can make at least one developer be their friend within seven days.
The WMF really is central in this, because we have a policy of hiring
On 29/03/11 11:26, MZMcBride wrote:
Long ago I lost track of who's in charge of what, but I'm told there is some
sort of hierarchy in place in the tech department. Who's empowered to start
assigning people to review code in a reasonable timeframe? Like Aryeh, I
find this entire thread a bit
Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org writes:
On 26/03/11 14:56, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
If code is to survive past a week in the repository, it has to be
reviewed.
If you want to make a commit that depends on un-reviewed code, you have
to find someone to review it. Otherwise, your
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Friesen wrote:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/80248
Comment gives a Tesla link saying something broke. However the Tesla
link does not identify that commit as the guaranteed commit that
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Platonides wrote:
Come on. It is easy enough to check if your revision is the culprit.
svn up -r r80247
cd tests/phpunit/
make noparser
Which takes approximately one hour to run.
We should fix this, because otherwise nobody is going
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
mhershber...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Platonides platoni...@gmail.com writes:
And no, nobody wants our review paradigm to be let's spend several
months on the backlog every time we want to release. It was just the
best we managed to
Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
If you want to make a commit that depends on un-reviewed code, you have
to find someone to review it. Otherwise, your commit will break trunk
when that code is reverted.
This is actually a lot harder
On 26/03/11 05:48, Daniel Friesen wrote:
What about the fixmes left open since it's not clear if anything is even
still broken currently.
If it is unclear: it either need a clarification or deserve a reversion.
We already have enough lines hiding in the fog, read to jump at you when
you get
2011/3/26 Mark A. Hershberger mhershber...@wikimedia.org:
If code is to survive past a week in the repository, it has to be
reviewed.
This is basically what I suggested in the other thread, except I added
a few other conditions that have to be satisfied before we can start
using such a paradigm
On 11-03-25 11:57 PM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
On 26/03/11 05:48, Daniel Friesen wrote:
What about the fixmes left open since it's not clear if anything is even
still broken currently.
If it is unclear: it either need a clarification or deserve a reversion.
We already have enough lines hiding in
Daniel Friesen wrote:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/80248
Comment gives a Tesla link saying something broke. However the Tesla
link does not identify that commit as the guaranteed commit that
actually broke code. The commit was followed up with several fixmes
already
Roan Kattouw wrote:
2011/3/26 Mark A. Hershberger mhershber...@wikimedia.org:
If code is to survive past a week in the repository, it has to be
reviewed.
This is basically what I suggested in the other thread, except I added
a few other conditions that have to be satisfied before we can
Roan Kattouw wrote:
2011/3/26 Mark A. Hershberger mhershber...@wikimedia.org:
If code is to survive past a week in the repository, it has to be
reviewed.
This is basically what I suggested in the other thread, except I added
a few other conditions that have to be satisfied before we can
Platonides platoni...@gmail.com writes:
And no, nobody wants our review paradigm to be let's spend several
months on the backlog every time we want to release. It was just the
best we managed to afford.
We've been doing a little better for the past month, but Robla's
chart[1] is still looking
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
mhershber...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I suggest we implement this ASAP. If we start this policy on April 4th,
we would be doing the first round of reverts April 11th. We should
grandfather in the current code, of course. It would be exempt
On 11-03-25 09:23 PM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
mhershber...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I suggest we implement this ASAP. If we start this policy on April 4th,
we would be doing the first round of reverts April 11th. We should
grandfather in the current
I'd prefer if those superb review tools were named instead of vague
references about greener pastures and how wonderful it will be reviewing
code with git.
And no, nobody wants our review paradigm to be let's spend several
months on the backlog every time we want to release. It was just the
best
21 matches
Mail list logo
