Ticket #594 (open bug)
- Created: 2012-01-13 18:43:58
- Reported by: Reines
- Assigned to: None
- Milestone: 2.3
- Component: tracker
- Priority: normal
At the moment we don't really do any code review. One way of doing this would be making use of Git branches or GitHub forks more - but that would be quite a change in workflow so I'm not a huge fan.
At the moment we have a record of all commits, thanks to the GitHub hooks - perhaps we could simply add a field to the table indicating if a commit has been reviewed or not, and some way of listing all commits, their review status, and marking them as reviewed?
This would mean our workflow is unchanged - but give us an easy way to review changes before a release for example - we could then potentially also make the release script warn if not all commits have been reviewed.
Franz 2012-01-13 22:35:18
That is an awesome idea!
What would a "review" consist of? Just glancing over the commits? I guess that would probably not quite be enough...
Reines 2012-01-13 22:49:02
I wasn't suggesting any kind of hardcore review, just a glance over the code by someone other than the author.
Franz 2012-01-13 22:52:42
...just a glance over the code by someone other than the author.
The cool thing is that we can easily enforce that now. Again, great idea.
JohnLewis 2013-12-08 22:29:43
With my experience with Wikimedia, they make use of Gerrit for commit reviewing. Which effectively allows people to commit like normal on GitHub, except commits have to be reviewed by other users (+1s) or developers (+2s). In addition -1 and -2s can be given which effectively allows users to fully review commits. Once a commit has been okayed by a developer it is automatically merged into the repo.
Gerrithub.io allows this intergration with GitHub. This may be an easier solution that implementing a review system into the tracker her itself.
Franz 2013-12-08 23:24:16
I think pull requests work fairly well for code review.