[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews (original) (raw)

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Thu Sep 30 00:33:47 CEST 2010

On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:30:10 -0400 Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:

One other thought: IME patches in general are suboptimal to branches, so I think we should be encouraging people to publish their branches publicly for review. A diff is a decent way to get feedback about code changes, but that's often only part of the work involved in deciding whether a change should be accepted or not. A reviewer often wants to do a build with the changes, test them on various tasks and application, run the test suite, etc. For this, "merge" is much better than patch(1). When I review a patch, I will tend to assume that the poster has already run the test suite (especially if it's another committer). Having to checkout a branch and generate a diff myself would make it much longer to produce a review, in most cases.

Yep, it depends on who is submitting the branch, what the branch changes, etc.

Even rebuilding a new branch from scratch can be slower than applying the diff in an existing checkout and letting make rebuild a couple of files.

You can have "co-located" branches[1] which essentially switch in-place, so if a branch is changing some .c files, you won't have to rebuild the whole world just to try out a patch.

-Barry

[1] I only have experience with these in Bazaar so Mercurial's might work differently or be called something different. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100929/8eb426eb/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list