[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 1 00:12:12 CEST 2010

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>> (I am strongly in favor of this, but I don't think many core committers
>> are.)
> Having worked in this style for almost 5 years now, I am also strongly
> in favor. Jesse expressed it better than I could.

I'll be one of those to object (but only slightly).

I think one of the privileges/responsibilities that goes with commit
access is the ability to make the call between:
- "this is a simple change/fix, I'll just check it in with possible
post hoc review via python-checkins"
- "I want feedback on the idea and/or details before I commit this,
I'll post a patch for review to the tracker"
- "I may want help in getting this working and/or this may take a
while to get right, so I'll create a branch for it"

(with the balance between 2 and 3 apparently shifting more in favour
of 3 once we have hg to play with)

Particularly for user visible API changes, I think getting a sanity
check from at least one other dev before committing is a good idea.
For smaller stuff, I think python-checkins after the fact reviews are
enough to cover it (particularly now that one person asking a question
will kick the entire diff over to python-dev for broader review).


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list