Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central
mnyromyr at tprac.de
Thu Jun 10 23:02:25 UTC 2010
Dan Mosedale aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>> Actually, I find this policy change strange, to say the least. I'd
>> say that TB needs - no offence meant! - more reviewing, not less.
>> I'm aware that reviewers as such are a scarce resource, but (as I
>> said before) you can't exchange competence by automation...
> I guess I'm not convinced that "more" versus "less" really captures
> the nuance of the change that's on the table here.
Well, not in the strict sense of words. 10 people looking at something
they don't fully grasp instead of 1 surely won't help.
Certain classes of potential bugs are just invisible to the less
experienced. Hence they _can't_ and won't request further
(super-)review, because they don't even know there's a problem!
> In particular, it seems to me an attempt to focus the reviewing eyes
> where they're _most_ needed, rather than trying to blanket a
> too-large-code-base using insufficient resources.
I just doubt that exchanging quality by throughput is helping.
> Given that anyone (patch author or reviewer) can and should be asking
> for second reviews when appropriate,
How would they know? (See above.)
More information about the tb-planning