| 1 |
I am unfamiliar with how other big projects that use code review systems. Do they generally make (almost) everyone participate, or do they typically restrict review to a certain class of users? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
-- |
| 4 |
NP-Hardass |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On July 4, 2015 4:14:14 AM EDT, "Manuel Rüger" <mrueg@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>On 03.07.2015 22:22, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 8 |
>> (Breaking the thread, because I believe this topic needs further |
| 9 |
>> discussion). |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 03:39:31PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote: |
| 12 |
>>> Are there still any plans to use a code review system like gerrit |
| 13 |
>that |
| 14 |
>>> will avoid merges, rebases etc. to the tree by just accepting and |
| 15 |
>>> serializing patches? |
| 16 |
>> Merges are a fact of life, they will be happening. |
| 17 |
>> This was included on: |
| 18 |
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Rebases of already published commits must be avoided. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> But beyond that, the general discussion was that a code review system |
| 23 |
>> was not in the immediate future... |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> If the merge workflow becomes too problematic due to the high rate of |
| 26 |
>> change, then we can revisit those systems, to take advantage of their |
| 27 |
>> auto-merging functionality, but probably only in combination with the |
| 28 |
>QA |
| 29 |
>> testsuites. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>Using a Code Review System and allowing direct commits are not mutually |
| 33 |
>exclusive. |
| 34 |
>If infra has got time to set it up, this could be an option in addition |
| 35 |
>to direct commits for developers and we could make it obligatory (e.g. |
| 36 |
>for the first month) for new developers. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>It would also allow proxied maintainers to commit to the tree more |
| 39 |
>easily, as it will require just an additional ack by the proxy |
| 40 |
>maintainer. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
>Manuel |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
NP-Hardass |
Archives