On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Trevor Daniels
<address@hidden> wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, January 03, 2009 2:40 AM
How much oversight should the Frog patches receive? These patches
have been reviewed by Carl. They compile cleanly, adhere to our
code standards (to the extent that Carl understands them), and
appear to fix the bug.
I see three proposals:
1) Let Carl commit whatever patches he has reviewed.
2) Require that each patch be reviewed by a "Core developer"
(Han-Wen, Jan, or Joe).
3) Let Carl commit whatever he's fairly certain is good, and ask
for help with whatever he doesn't understand. If somebody like
Werner or Reinhold says "sure, looks ok", then he goes ahead and
commits.
I'd go for (3). Carl can surely deal with patches which change
doc strings, the current task assigned to frogs, without asking
for a code review. Serious changes to code should go through
code review, of course, like those submitted by any developer,
but I guess there will not be many of those from the frog team,
at least not initially. Let's leave anything in-between to Carl's
judgement - if he screws up I'm sure he'll quickly adjust his
criteria!
I also vote for option 3. For borderline cases, I'd encourage Carl to post the patches on rietveld, possibly with a comment like "I think this one's fine, so I'll commit it unless someone comments in 2 days"
Joe