On 28/03/12 18:10, Antoine Musso wrote: > scan for i18n: > > Can this be somehow scripted / made more automatic? We should probably > eastablish a list of recurrent issues then have a script to > automatically analyse files to find possible culprit. Two possibles > examples comes to mind: > - messages being added in MessagesEn.php and missing from > Messages.inc. 100% sure this can be scripted > - wfMessage() being used without an explicit formatting call (->parse, > ->parseAsBlock(), ->text()). There is again 100% possibility to script > that using PHP tokenizer.
How would you script that if you don't have the files? (as they are pending a merge) Could we have a branch which included all non-abandoned patches? Or maybe all patches whose total feedback is not negative. >> == Local changes == >> How to handle permanent local changes? There have already been suggestions: >> * use git stash (not fun to do for every push) >> * use git review --no-rebase (no idea if this is a good idea) >> * commit them to local development branch (but then how to rebase >> changes-to-commit to master before pushing?) > > I have talked about it with Niklas and have no idea how that could be > fixed. Maybe by working in a local branch and then have the current > commit to be merged to a clean master before submission. That would > require some scripting. > > Niklas, I guess you want to send a new mail to wikitech-l so it receives > more attention. Maybe by developing on a clean repository, from which you pull to the with-patches one? >> == How to FIXME == >> We need a way to identify *merged* commits that need fixing. Those >> commits should be our collective burden to fix. It must not rely on >> the reporter of the issue fixing the issue him/herself or being >> persistent enough to get someone to fix it. >> >> I was suggested to use bugzilla, but it's a bit tedious to use and >> doesn't as-is have the high visibility like FIXMES used to have. > > We should have less fixme nowadays since we have adopted a pre merge > review, it still happens from time to time though. Our bug report is > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/35535 Can someone measure at CodeReview the number of revisions which went to fixme after having been on ok? gerrit system allowing pre-review doesn't help with the 'false review rate'. There *will* be bugs which get merged into the main repo. Not every master status will be perfectly stable, as we wish it were. Ability to mark the patchsets as fixme is a good tool. If we had a list of follow-ups in gerrit, that would also be useful. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
