Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Git/gerrit migration status and next steps
Re: Git/gerrit migration status and next steps
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:16:52 -0500
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 September 2011 21:02, Nils Wallménius <nils.wallmenius_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I honestly have no idea how the whole blame shareing thing happened
> either. anyone who does software engineering should know that "review"
> means implementation review and not feautre review.
> I also mentioned it now because it is a valuable thing to talk about,
> I gess I should use an alias now seen as obviously everything I
> suggest is so unbeleivably wrong!
I'll take responsibility for the phrase "blame sharing" though I think
it's been somewhat misunderstood what I meant with it.
I do NOT intend to suggest that this method is some scheme to force
people to share the blame for contentious commits.
What I do fear is that when someone has a commit pending review for a
part of the code few people know well, many committers will be
hesitant to review it because they don't feel they personally could
make a good call on whether the new code will be "good." This creates
a situation where people basically have the choice of giving it a
thumbs up and hoping, or not reviewing at all. People can be hesitant
about this because if you do give it a thumbs up, and then something
goes wrong, you signed off on it. I feel this could slow development
even more. Part of having commit access is being trusted to decide,
for yourself, when your code is good. If you feel it needs review, you
ask for it. If you feel confident, you commit it.
Received on 2011-09-07