From: Marcelo V. <va...@us...> - 2008-11-27 22:01:21
|
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Kazutoshi Satoda <k_s...@f2...> wrote: > What do you think the concrete problem is, in the way reviewing the > committed revisions? It's not a problem, it's just a different way of looking at things (and my opinion might be biased because it's the way we do things at work). I think it's better to review the code before it goes in, so that you catch problems before they reach the codebase. You seem to think it's not a problem if a problem is introduced and fixed later on. Also sending explicit reviews to the devel list seems better to me because it avoids people having to monitor the CVS digests which are pretty noisy. > (I might miss about git/mercurial > here, because I have not used them in real work.) I'm not incredibly familiar with either (I just started doing very simple things with git lately), but I think a system like that would make it easier to share the diffs with people so they can easily test them and back them out, and also help with the incremental diff problem that you mention (i.e., make a change in your git tree, commit it to your git tree, then fix any issues found during review and send the diffs to the previous git revision in your tree). Then, when all is fine, check in the changes to svn. No solution is perfect, it's just a matter of choosing what people feel is better. -- Marcelo Vanzin mmv...@gm... "Life's too short to drink cheap beer." |