On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:23:19PM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Tres Seaver <tseaver <at> palladion.com> writes:
This is an excellent set of guidelines. The only drawback I see here is that the current VCS situation makes doing the review more tedious than it should be, especially for non-committers. Or maybe the Hg mirrors are truly up-to-date and working? Last I looked, they were lagging or unavailable.
If you only a review a patch (rather than say maintain and evolve it), there's no point in using hg rather than SVN.
Hmm, it feels exactly the other way around to me: working with the DVCS tools while reviewiing a patch allows me to be more productive (e.g., using 'bzr shelve' or the equivalent hg subcommand).
Making a local branch / clone for each issue also feels more natural than working in a read-only SVN checkout.
+1. I find it to be an excellent way to muck around with patches and make my own changes / diffs / etc. for a review process. (Not that I do any Python reviews, note. But it's a great technique in general.)
It's also fantastically simple and esay to interact with patches that are branches on someone's bitbucket or github repo; much better than uploading and downloading patch files while in the middle of a discussion.