I agree with the reviewers thing. Because then it gets put on the record as to who supported/had a problem with the commit.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected] On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jon Robson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think adding reviewers to commit messages would be a useful thing to > do and I guess should be relatively easy? > > I think a form of tagging in gerrit would be highly useful. > > The thing I got from this article is sometimes it is useful to a > potential code reviewer to get an idea of how much time they need to > invest in a code review and how important it is compared to other > patches. > > In the MobileFrontend project alone I could imagine the tags > 'trivial', 'nicetohave', 'criticalbugfix' and 'currentiteration' would > be useful to the team. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between > experimental features we are playing with, things that need to be > deployed asap and things that relate to our agile style of working > which need more attention if they are to be completed before the end > of an iterative cycle. > > Is there any such concept of tags in gerrit? It would be great to be > able to get an idea about a patchset's importance before checking out > the code and inspecting commits. > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Juliusz Gonera <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I liked the post, but I'm not sure what exactly we should change in our > code > > reviews. Could you explain? > > > > > > > > On 01/21/2013 01:40 PM, Ori Livneh wrote: > >> > >> There's a useful blog post on code review at Mozilla by Mozilla > developer > >> David Humphrey on his blog: <http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=1569>. > >> > >> I like his breakdown of different types of code reviews. It seems like > at > >> Mozilla there is a lot of room for the patch submitter to indicate to > >> reviewers what sort of review is needed for a particular patch, ranging > from > >> requests for manual testing and careful scrutiny all the way to what > >> Humphrey calls "catechism reviews", in which the committer uses a review > >> request to announce her intent and solicit a basic sanity-check. > >> > >> Unofficially such reviews do not exist at the WMF because we are all > >> infallibly meticulous and diligent about testing every branch of every > code > >> change. But unofficially they do, of course. It'd be nice if such > reviews > >> were formally sanctioned (with whatever qualifications). I'm interested > to > >> hear other people's thoughts. > >> > >> -- > >> Ori Livneh > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > -- > Jon Robson > http://jonrobson.me.uk > @rakugojon > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
