Jan Luca wrote: > Thank you. But I mean which requirements are there? > > Gruß > Jan Luca
I don't think they are really clear. Some relevant bits from http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/39896 Brion: > I've thrown together a little > CodeReview extension for MediaWiki to help with this. It pulls the SVN > revision data as commits are made and presents an interface on the wiki > where we can see what's been reviewed, tag problems, and add comments > for follow-up issues. > Currently comments are open to any registered user on the wiki; status > changes and tagging updates are limited to the 'coder' group, which is > viral -- any coder can make another user a coder. Simetrical: > I'm assuming that people who have > had commit access for a reasonably long time and have shown they know > how to use it should be marked coders, but I'm still really uncertain > given that nobody's actually said what the various statuses are > supposed to actually mean. Are people going to actually scap on the > basis of nothing other than the fact that every commit is marked > ok/resolved? If so, it's probably a bad idea for people other than > Tim or Brion to add those markings, at least on a regular basis, > unless we really want that. Brion: > The current theory is we'd like it to be easy to mark things as needing > *more* review, but hard to mark things as needing *less* review. > > So that probably means a split-level permissions model, perhaps with > distinct pre-review and super-review (to use the Mozilla term -- patch > reviews get "super-reviewed" by a core committer, or some such crazy thing). > > It is, of course, an evolving system. :) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
