- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:43:46 -0700
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 22/04/2013 13:12 , James Graham wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>> The only thing that we ask is that pull requests not be merged by >>> whoever made the request. >> >> Is this to prevent the `fox guarding the chicken coop`, so to speak? >> >> If a test facilitator submits tests (i.e. makes a PR) and everyone >> that reviews them says they are OK, it seems like the facilitator >> should be able to do the merge. > > Yes, my view is that Robin is trying to enforce the wrong condition > here. No, I'm just operating under different assumptions. As I said before, if someone wants to review without having push/merge powers, it's perfectly okay. I don't even think we need a convention for it (at this point). I do however consider that this is an open project, so that whoever reviews tests can be granted push/merge power. Why? Because the alternative is this: you get an "accepted" comment from someone on a PR. Either you trust that person, in which case she could have merge powers; or you don't, in which case you have to review the review to check that it's okay. Either way, we're better off making that decision at the capability assignment level since it only happens once per person. > The problem isn't with people merging their own changes; it's with > unreviewed changes being merged. Yup. > (as an aside, I note that critic does a much better job here. It allows > reviewers to mark when they have completed reviewing each file in each > commit. It also records exactly how each issue raised was resolved, > either by the commit that fixed it or by the person that decided to mark > the issue as resolved) You may wish to introduce Critic a bit more than that; I'm pretty sure that many of the bystanders in this conversation aren't conversant with it. > Indeed, there are currently 41 open pull requests and that number is not > decreasing. Getting more help with the reviewing is essential. But > that's a Hard Problem because reviewing is both difficult and boring. I would qualify that statement. If you're already pretty good with web standards and you wish to improve your understanding to top levels (and gain respect from your peers), this is actually a really good thing to work on. Or if you're implementing, it's likely a little bit less work to review than to write from scratch (and it can make you aware of corner cases or problems you hadn't thought of). Put differently, I think it can be a lot less boring if you're getting something out of it. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 06:45:06 UTC