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 start > using such a paradigm (relating to reviewer allocation, discipline and > assignment). > > Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
You mentioned reverting broken code. Mark proposes reverting *unreviewed* code. We are generally polite by marking fixme the code from others, and avoiding reverting as much as possible. I agree with the proposal of reverting after a few days with an "important fixme". But reverting new revisions because noone reviewed it, seems going too far (at least at this moment). It would make much more sense to draft some process where you have to review the previous revision of the files you are changing. However, that would forbid fast fixes (eg. fixing the whitespace of the previous commit) without fully reviewing it, which is also undesirable (the revision keeps unreviewed, and with the wrong whitespace). _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
