From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reviewing changes Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:19:33 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87y6zggnmz.fsf@red-bean.com> <87d4grbcc0.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227212399 10573 80.91.229.12 (20 Nov 2008 20:19:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 20 21:21:01 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L3G1G-0006mX-Bu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:20:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46622 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L3G07-0007zH-Dm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:19:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L3G01-0007ww-JL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:19:37 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L3G00-0007vg-GO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:19:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34647 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L3G00-0007vd-BV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:19:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il ([84.95.2.7]:46171) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L3G00-0004pD-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:19:36 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout3.012.net.il by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KAN00J00F5KYC00@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:21:33 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.113.18]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KAN006Z5F7WXWB0@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:21:33 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:105863 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:30:25 -0500 > > >> > If there's no agreement to have a review process, I can simply ignore > >> > your review. > >> Of course. Would that be a problem? > > It makes the whole review process unreliable and inefficient. > > I don't follow you. I really don't understand why. It's not like we are inventing some new practices here. Code reviews are used in almost any organization that develops software. Books are written on how to do that, and none of those I've read recommend what is being suggested here as "good, though not perfect". IMO, if we cannot do it well, it isn't worth doing. > We already have code reviews, just rarely so. No, we don't. What we have is random (and very rare) comments, and no mechanism to resolve disagreements when they happen.