>> Roan Kattouw wrote: >>> Yes, ops essentially uses a post-commit workflow right now, and that >>> makes sense for them. >> >> ops also uses pre-commit review for non-ops people :-] >> > Yeah, that's right. What I meant to say (and thought I had said in > some form later in that message) was that the puppet repo has > post-commit review for most changes by ops staff, and pre-commit > review for everything else (non-ops staff, volunteers, and certain > changes by ops staff in some cases).
I became curious with these statements regarding self-review (committer==reviewer) and so I ran a couple of queries against the gerrit database to see how often this occurs: 1) For the puppet repo, 84.1% of the commits is self-reviewed. 2) For the mediawiki core repo, 27.9% of the commits is self-reviewed. 3) For the mediawiki extensions repos, 67.8% of the commits is self-reviewed. I think we need to take a step back from a tool-focused discussion and first hash out what our commit workflows are / should be. In particular: 1) Should there be one commit workflow that applies to all teams? Looking at current practise, the answer seems to be no but I am curious to hear what other people think. If the answer is that it's okay for different teams to have different commit workflows, then we should also look for tools that support this. 2) If self-review is so prevalent, does that mean that the pre-commit review workflow has failed? Diederik _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
