On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:39 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob Lanphier wrote: >> After review, some (but not all) of the features in the review queue >> then need to be reviewed for checking into the deployment branch. Our >> short term answer to that was the deployment queue: >> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Deployment_queue > > I have a few comments. > > You're chomping at the edges again, but not focusing on the larger issue. > It's still about _WHO_ is going to be deploying these extensions (or doing > general code updates). That question is still unresolved and it's at the > heart of the problem. By focusing on the periphery, you're simply needlessly > adding paperwork (like the new "Deployment queue") without actually > accomplishing anything. Read on for a specific example of why deployment is > sometimes the sole issue, not review. >
+1. I feel like we're trying to change a workflow when we should be trying to get rid of a backlog. Instead of trying to discuss ways to improve the workflow, we should Just Do It. For example, I don't agree that the code review workflow is a bit awkward. However, when Tim had to leave and we needed people to step up reviewing--we just stepped up; we didn't discuss how to first improve the process. Likewise, I think we should first focus on enabling more people to do merge+scap (maybe the same group who review code?) and get it going on a more often basis. Having a good workflow is great, but I think we should look at the bigger issue first. We can design the best workflow ever, but like code review if only one person does it it all falls apart. > The issue with focusing on a "Review queue" is that it puts the focus and > emphasis in the wrong place. Nobody cares about getting their code reviewed > (per se). They want their code live on the site. Most developers don't care > if their code is efficient or not (Domas can speak more to this), they just > want to see their hard work in production. That's why they contribute code > (or contributed, as the case seems to be nowadays). So the emphasis should > be on deployment, a key step of which is code review, to be sure. But > putting the focus on review (as though once review is finished, something > will magically change) is silly and a poor idea. > IMHO: If minor** code has been reviewed and deemed fit for use, it should be merged almost immediately. Full stop. ** by minor, I mean as long as it doesn't create dependency issues, require schema changes, or are a huge refactor. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
