Code review required for commits - Discuss.

[Matthieu Patou]

On 10/11/2012 06:58 PM, simo wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 18:23 -0400, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthieu Patou <mat at samba.org> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2012 12:48 PM, Ira Cooper wrote:
>>>>> 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. ;)
>>>> To my french mind the wording seems a bit confusing, are you saying
>>>> that:
>>>> 1) every author could (should?) add their own sign-off
>>>> 2) in total 2 sign-off are need, which means at least 1 non-author
>>>> review
>>>> (but can be two if the author decide not to sign-off it's patch)
>>> That is correct.
>>>
>>> Time to time we all write things that need some more review, and we
>>> know it.  Not signing them off is a way to say "Hey, I want a second
>>> reviewer, because I know this is hairy."  I actually have some code
>>> sitting around that may trigger that, because of what it plays with
>>> :).
>>>
>>> Also it covers all "non-team" code, they all go through 2 sign-offs.
>>>
>>> -Ira
>>
>> Ira, we discussed this a bit in the IRC channel today, but I'm
>> curious.  How does this work for a non-member that has code in Samba?
>> Can I maintain the parts of code that I've written without two team
>> members signing off?  It's really not a big deal, but we might as well
>> get these things ironed out while there is discussion going on.
> As far as I am concerned 1 signoff (author) and 1 ack should be
> sufficient, independently of who is the author.
> However it would be really desirable that who acks is the maintainer.
Why not at the opposite encouraging review by someone not necessarily 
familiar with area of the code ? so that we tend to encourage 
involvement in parts where we usually don't work ?

As for sensitive part people concerned about the patches (ie. 
maintainer(s)) could always pop-up on the list and tell that they want 
to do a review as well and do it within 7 days.

Matthieu.