On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think "revert in 72 hours if its unreviewed" is a good idea. It > just discourages people from contributing to areas in which we only > have one reviewer looking at code. > > I *do* think we should enforce a 48hr "revert if broken" rule. If you > can't be bothered to clean up your breakages in within 48 hours of > putting your original patch in, it must not have been very important.
I'm really not a fan of drop-dead deadlines in the one to two day range in general. I occasionally have periods of about two or three days when I don't have access to a computer (or time to use one). I think that if we actually want pre-commit review (which I don't have a problem with), we should have pre-commit review instead of excessive reversion. Reverts make the revision log hard to follow, feel like a slap in the face to many developers (especially new ones, who this policy is supposed to be attracting!), and of course give us lots of merge conflicts and what not. I think it would combine with commits of code that's broken in the first place to exacerbate the current situation where a single change can have up to ten associated revisions where people fix little things, revert, unrevert, and generally make things difficult to review and follow. -- Andrew Garrett Wikimedia Foundation agarr...@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
