Code review required for commits - Discuss.

Ira Cooper ira at
Thu Oct 11 16:54:50 MDT 2012

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthieu Patou <mat at> wrote:
> In general I'm mostly ok with this proposal but we have to aware that will
> increase the workload on some of us.
> Also I want to have precision on how to handle the failure in autobuild and
> I'd like to see a kind of watchdog so that patches can't wait more that xx
> days for review.

I think Matthieu has a point here, and it is important.  Timely review
is going to be key.

And I'm going to amend myself:  If there is code that has sat for 3
business days, the author/sponsor may push.  A simple flag for review
will buy time to do the review on complex code.  Use your brain.  But
if there are no flags... that is consent from "samba-technical".

> Finally as we did so far we can try this rule on a voluntary basis (it was
> the case for autobuild too) and see how it flies for 1 or 2 months.

I'd actually like this, especially in the fileserver areas which seem
to be causing the sensitivity.  In any case, I'd like this to be
something we revisit.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list