I systematically mark my fixes as ReviewNeeded because a second pair of eyes don't hurt. But this seems to be yet another bottleneck. Taking responsibility to review might seem scary and involving especially when changes touch obscure/complex part of the system. So maybe the review could take lighter, more or less automated forms: - does automated integration reports a regression ? - does the bug report gives enough technical solution details or a good rationale ? - are there some tests provided ? Maybe you could handle a confidence score per developer. with a priori and a posteriori informations. Like "good solution, but the integrator had more work to finish the job"... On the other hand, Pharo claims the right to do some mistakes (and soon correct them), so maybe this review phase could be relaxed a bit. And one thing I still ask for is a diff log for each SLICE posted in the inbox, entirely browsable from the issue tracker or from the bug list, because to review you need: - to read issue tracker report - AND to inspect the changes with Monticello merge in a recent clean image... Having the diff would be a great economy for the reviewers. Or maybe this already happened? Maybe the report generated by Monticello that pops up once the package commited, could contain such diff that we would manually copy/past in the bug entry. Would that be cheap enough ? Nicolas Le 24 février 2012 08:30, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> a écrit :
    http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/list?can=2&q=status%3AFixReviewNeeded
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de