[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 1 00:12:12 CEST 2010
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Celebrating issue #10000
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
(I am strongly in favor of this, but I don't think many core committers are.) Having worked in this style for almost 5 years now, I am also strongly in favor. Jesse expressed it better than I could.
I'll be one of those to object (but only slightly).
I think one of the privileges/responsibilities that goes with commit access is the ability to make the call between:
- "this is a simple change/fix, I'll just check it in with possible post hoc review via python-checkins"
- "I want feedback on the idea and/or details before I commit this, I'll post a patch for review to the tracker"
- "I may want help in getting this working and/or this may take a while to get right, so I'll create a branch for it"
(with the balance between 2 and 3 apparently shifting more in favour of 3 once we have hg to play with)
Particularly for user visible API changes, I think getting a sanity check from at least one other dev before committing is a good idea. For smaller stuff, I think python-checkins after the fact reviews are enough to cover it (particularly now that one person asking a question will kick the entire diff over to python-dev for broader review).
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Celebrating issue #10000
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]