Robla writes: 1. We say that a commit has some fixed window (e.g. 72 hours) to get reviewed, or else it is subject to automatic reversion. This will motivate committers to make sure they have a reviewer lined up, and make it clear that, if their code gets reverted, it's nothing personal...it's just our process.
Worse than pre-commit review. What if you make a change, I see it, and make changes to my code using your changes. 72 hours later, they get reverted, which screws my code. Okay, so then nobody's going to compile anything, or use anything, if it has 72-hour code in it. The alternative, if they want the code badly enough, is to review it so it will stick. Well, that devolves to the same thing as pre-commit review. And ... this only makes sense for core, or maybe for stable extensions. It doesn't make sense for experimental extensions where only one person is likely to understand or care what the code says. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
