Re: mechanisms for reviews needed

[Jacob]

Mark D. Baushke wrote:

> > The main problem is that each developer is the sole responsible
> > for the quality of the work commited.
>
>
> This is not a problem. A developer should be judged on the quality of
> the work they commit.

But that's to late. The code is already in the repository
and you don't even necesserily know about it!

> > This may work well in a small organization, or if the rules are strict
> > and everyone extremely diciplined. In general this want be true.
>  
> It will work if you are talking about committed professionals or
> contentious volunteers who care about the quality.

I have many different people in my team. There are novice
programmers that need guidance, brilliant programmers with
bad habits and brilliant programmers with good habits, but
being in a hurry.

All of these has the potential of degenerating our code
repository without a sound review process controling them.

Note that the review process is not to catch individuals, but
to ensure code quality. My company has stakeholders, and they
are simply not willing to pay for crap code.

> If you don't have such a team, you are doomed to failure in any case and
> no source code system will do anything other than slow your productivity
> to let you slowly bleed to death.

Actually I speek from experience. I use a commercial VCS on a
dayly basis with forced reviews for every update, and I would
never ever go for anything else.

In a different assignment I am working with Subversion, and
am threfore looking for features similar to the ones I am used
to.

Beleve me: In two years, no VCS will come without this feature!
This is all part of the XP/Agile/Test-driven/Pair-programming
shift we are experiencing. If any of you are responsible for
the CVS future you better plan for this feature sooner rather
than later.