On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Brion Vibber <br...@pobox.com> wrote: > When someone looks at your commit within ~72 hours and reverts it because > nobody's yet managed to figure out whether it works or not and it needs more > research and investigation... what was the reason for the revert? > > Because 'no one reviewed it'? Or because someone looked at it and decided it > needed more careful review than they could give yet?
"Yet" is the keyword here. Currently the only guarantee anyone has that their code will be reviewed at all is that it's in trunk, and historically releases and Wikimedia deployments have always been based on trunk, so someone's got to either review or revert it at some point, and it's eventually easier to review than revert once enough changes have accumulated on top of it. If a 72-hour revert rule were instituted with no additional policy changes, there's no reason to believe any of the reverted commits would ever be reviewed. And if it is reviewed weeks or months later, you've got to hope it hasn't bitrotted, which is a nonissue if it was on trunk the whole time. Plus it gets testing, if it's on trunk, so the longer it's been there, the more certain the reviewer can be that it doesn't cause serious issues. If the policy worked out to be "95% of volunteer commits get reviewed within three days, and the rest get temporarily reverted but put on a list where someone gets to them within a week or two" -- that would be fine. Heck, if 95% of volunteer commits got reviewed in three days and the rest got reverted never to see the light of day again, that would probably be a big improvement over the status quo. But *currently*, what percentage of volunteer commits get reviewed within three days? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
