Personal experiences/anecdotes of the bzr review processes

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 12:19 +1000, Mark Hammond wrote:

> > 
> > Agreed. I think process guidelines are just guidelines. Just because
> > something isn't pinned down does not make it unrecognisable.
> 
> But it also runs the risk of allowing an individuals personal style to get
> too wound up in the process.  It shouldn't be a case of "I'll ask XYZ to
> perform a review because I know they aren't going to ask me to re-paint it
> green."

I agree. And when that happens its bad. Its also bad when process
replaces doing things well.

> There should be confidence that the same basic review response will come
> regardless of who actually performs it.

I for one welcome the arrival of our new AI overlords. (I don't
guarantee I'll give the same review hour by hour.)

> Maybe it could be phrased something like "Tweaks relates to style issues
> will only be requested when it is believed every bzr core developer would
> raise the same objection.

paraphrasing, I read this as 'dont ask for improvements unless every
core developer will see it as an improvement'.

Which means... every review needs every core dev to look at it!

>   In other words, unless it is felt there is clear
> consensus about the style, a patch should not need re-tweaking due to the
> style.  Further, patches are not the place for debating such style - either
> there is clear consensus (so it *must* change) or there is not (so it *must
> not* hold up review)"
> 
> I hope my intent is clear - enforcing *personal* style that isn't
> necessarily a project wide requirement can be counterproductive for everyone
> involved.

I think there are two quite different issues.

One is being the subject of a tug-of-war between two devs, which is
largely limited to folk that haven't earnt PQM submission status yet.
I think we should avoid this one.


The other is mandating complete consensus before anything moves forward.
I think this one does not make sense.

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080924/e0e1a0fb/attachment.pgp