Code review required for commits - Discuss.

[Ira Cooper]

Jeremy and Simo brought this up in another topic, but it deserves its
own thread really.

Personally:

I have a rate of "bit rot" I expect on Illumos/Solaris.  It's usually
1-2 build breaks, and a few minor issues if I walk away for 6 months.
Yes... I have expectations on just how broken things get.  Sometimes
we all exceed them.  Sometimes not.  But the rule of thumb: "Master
won't build 100% right if I haven't touched it in 6 months." is right.

Also, in most serious work I've done, I've always had reviewers before
committing my code, provided I'm not the only one working on it.  It
is just standard procedure.

So consider this my +1, to their ideas, and giving them a "rule".

Actual formal suggestion:

No team member commits their own code.  All code will be "signed off"
by two team members, as a team member you may sign off your own code.
The "non-author" team member will be responsible for pushing the code.
 If there are two they can agree among themselves. ;)

Release branches work as they do today, though the + should be treated
as a sign-off in bugzilla.  All bug commits should now contain their
bug number in them, so we can track back what happened.

Thanks,

-Ira