| 1 |
On July 4, 2015 1:49:20 PM EDT, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>NP-Hardass wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I am unfamiliar with how other big projects that use code review |
| 5 |
>> systems. Do they generally make (almost) everyone participate, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>In coreboot, which admittedly isn't such a big project, my impression |
| 8 |
>is that the introduction of Gerrit has lead to increased |
| 9 |
>participation. Previously patches and review went across the mailing |
| 10 |
>list, and many simply filtered the whole list into a folder. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> or do they typically restrict review to a certain class of users? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>Hm, why would that end up happening? I'm not saying it can't, just |
| 16 |
>that I don't understand why it would. What do you have in mind? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>//Peter |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, it was just proposed earlier in the thread that it could be used for non-devs (primarily/only), hence two classes of users, those subjected to review and those not. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
An alternative is a situation where all users, developer and non developer alike require review with the review requirements different between the two, e.g. devs need one signoff, non devs need two. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Additionally, for certain aspects, a hybrid of those two might be useful. A project or herd accepts direct commits to its packages from its members and has code review for non members (with the number of signoffs dependent on the group/content. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
NP-Hardass |
Archives