From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Code reviews Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:30:31 -0500 Message-ID: References: <56BE7E37.3090708@cs.ucla.edu> <4hd1rw1ubr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <87vb4zb0i4.fsf@gnu.org> <837fheuu6a.fsf@gnu.org> <877fheb1rh.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87ziua9mwq.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83h9git36k.fsf@gnu.org> <87vb4y9ep9.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83a8mat2aa.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3fm9du0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87d1r5a9lh.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457415074 1517 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2016 05:31:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 05:31:14 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 08 06:31:05 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adAEW-0005hj-03 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:31:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60435 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adAEV-0000Do-6X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:30:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39545) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adAEH-0000DC-JS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:30:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adAEC-0004cA-EY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:30:45 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:34619) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adAEC-0004bz-7l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:30:40 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adAE9-0005RL-Qq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:30:37 +0100 Original-Received: from 157.52.15.125 ([157.52.15.125]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:30:37 +0100 Original-Received: from monnier by 157.52.15.125 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:30:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.52.15.125 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:XZ3zAE8sFDNnGujQsBVquzLcTKY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201129 Archived-At: > Something like this is what I meant with "Don't give commit access to > the golden branches to everyone". Anyways, you can't expect having high > quality commit logs (or VC history at all, take a look at the DAG to see > what I mean) and give write access liberally. Indeed (and yes, the DAG shape is another one of those problems, made worse by the fact that Git doesn't help us). > Having ChangeLogs as a compromise is absurd: you have to proof-read > and fix them anyway. Correct or reject the real thing (the > commit) instead. Agreed. My choice has been to live with unfixed (and hence lower-quality) commit messages [even if some people here do make the effort to fix them in the ChangeLog, I don't benefit from it because I don't use the ChangeLog]. > I guess that asking for a review queue is out of the question, although > I'm afraid that it would not turn to be a good thing since some people > here tend to be quite picky when reviewing foreign contributions True enough on both counts. A code review system should allow both to "reject a commit and ask the author to provide a new patch" and to "fix the commit ourselves" since in many cases it's easier both for the contributors and the reviewer. Stefan