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 11:21:42 -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> <83oaaprmmb.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457454398 15578 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2016 16:26:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:26:38 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 08 17:26:32 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 1adKRF-00032m-Mw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:24:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35662 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adKRF-0003NR-7W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:24:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44837) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adKQU-0002lp-Jg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:24:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adKQQ-0007DN-9w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:24:02 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43630) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adKQM-0007Ck-RG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:23:58 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adKOq-0001Na-ST for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:22:20 +0100 Original-Received: from 157-52-15-125.cpe.teksavvy.com ([157.52.15.125]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:22:20 +0100 Original-Received: from monnier by 157-52-15-125.cpe.teksavvy.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:22:20 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 34 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 157-52-15-125.cpe.teksavvy.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fuZ+sV/d3TsJ3+EXL7n9awRSqZI= 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:201168 Archived-At: >> That's why I've followed a practice of giving out write access very >> liberally, with "post-commit spot-check reviews" instead. Indeed, it > Post-commit reviews also take time. Indeed. But notice the "spot-check" part: only some of the commits are actually (post-commit) reviewed. >> Maybe we could have a half-way system, where commits are pushed to >> a branch that is "not fast-forward-only", and this branch is then >> auto-merged to the real (fast-forward-only) master branch after a delay >> (one day, maybe?) to give time to fix mess ups before they're cast >> in stone. > A day is nowhere near enough. IME, a bad commit pushed to master > takes up to a week to be discovered. Maybe the delay should depend on the submitter. An infinite delay for first-submitters and a 0 delay for those submitters we trust to carefully review they commit messages before pushing (clearly, I wouldn't be one of them), and all kinds of other values in-between. > More generally, the problem with such a branch is that it won't be > much different from pushing to master, except in rare cases that it > breaks the build, and even that can only be avoided if we set up some > kind of CI system that continuously builds that branch on the main > supported platforms. The review queue could be used for code-quality reviews indeed, but I was thinking here about focusing on the commit-message reviewing (since we can fix the code after the fact with additional commits, whereas we can't fix commit messages after the fact, thanks to Git implementors's short-sightedness). Stefan