Code review required for commits - Discuss.

[Michael Adam]

Hi Andrew,

On 2012-10-12 at 18:18 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 08:56 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On 2012-10-12 at 08:43 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:07:34PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:54:50PM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 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".
> > > > 
> > > > I'm ok with that. If someone ignores a patch on samba-technical for
> > > > 3 days without even saying "I want to review this" then it's probably
> > > > good to go.
> > > 
> > > Just for my understanding (lots of mails to read...): Does
> > > this mean that if I ask someone for review and I get no
> > > response whatsoever, I am free to push it without review? Or
> > > do I have to get someone else to review it?
> > 
> > My feeling is that 3 days might not be enough.
> > I think we could do the following:
> > 
> > * sending a patch to samba-technical with request for review
> >   is the call for review to everyone.
> > * if there is no reaction, author should ping again after 2-3
> >   days (workdays).
> > * I would give a free push pass not earlier then 1 week after
> >   requesting review
> > 
> > Generally, it should work out in not more than 2-3 days of course.
> 
> As Ira said before, and I tend to agree with him on this much, if nobody
> is interested after 3 business days, then nobody is interested.
> Stretching this process out for a week is only going to cause
> aggravation for no additional benefit. 

Ok, the main point is this:

Change "review" from a matter of interest to a required step in
our software development.

Hence, I am inclinend to change my proposal to:

* we should _not_ allow a free push pass after any number of days at all.

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20121012/a610c329/attachment.pgp>