On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:22 AM, David Allouche <david@allouche.net> wrote:
By the way, how do you guys do code reviews for code integrated into the core?
Its fairly informal. Once a Slice has been submitted to the Pharo5Inbox the associated Issue on Fogbugz is <Resolved> to "Fix review Needed" - people review it out and comment. Unfortunately with limited resources, sometime resolved issues can languish if reviewer don't feel its within their expertise, and often it falls the to small group of the core-devs from Inria. As Pharo grows more popular we may need some improved processes to reduce load on core-devs. I'd be interested in what you've seen work in other environments. Have you seen these... http://pharo.org/contribute-propose-fix https://pharo.fogbugz.com/?W68 cheers -ben
On 13 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:22 AM, David Allouche <david@allouche.net> wrote:
By the way, how do you guys do code reviews for code integrated into the core?
Its fairly informal. Once a Slice has been submitted to the Pharo5Inbox the associated Issue on Fogbugz is <Resolved> to "Fix review Needed" - people review it out and comment. Unfortunately with limited resources, sometime resolved issues can languish if reviewer don't feel its within their expertise, and often it falls the to small group of the core-devs from Inria. As Pharo grows more popular we may need some improved processes to reduce load on core-devs.
I believe that is an area that needs improving. But probably not right now.
I'd be interested in what you've seen work in other environments.
Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of direct and relevant experience there. We did code reviews at Canonical, but I would never apply the kind of process we used there in a community project. I do believe it is essential that the path from "someone submits code" and "send code review" be as frictionless as possible. Code reviews are hard and time consuming. Any time spent not actually reading and commenting code is a put off. Concretely, that means I think a good, interactive, actively maintained, web-based code review tool is essential. I heard good things about github. But since people in this community seem to have a strong bias towards doing everything in Pharo, that might not be such a good idea... In any case, I think it should be easy to review code without loading the change in the image.
Have you seen these... http://pharo.org/contribute-propose-fix
I have seen it. But I did not feel that was relevant to me: I was not yet familiar with any of tools mentioned there, nor was I familiar with the policies surrounding code contributions.
I had seen it too, when exploring the issue tracker. And similarly, I felt it was not yet relevant to me. So I quickly forgot about it :-) I will be sure to refer to those documents as my involvement and confidence increase. Regards.
I am currently in a project where we use Phabricator. Interesting tool for sure but also a huge PITA as the flow isn't streamlined. Phil On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:26 PM, David Allouche <david@allouche.net> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:22 AM, David Allouche <david@allouche.net> wrote:
By the way, how do you guys do code reviews for code integrated into the core?
Its fairly informal. Once a Slice has been submitted to the Pharo5Inbox the associated Issue on Fogbugz is <Resolved> to "Fix review Needed" - people review it out and comment. Unfortunately with limited resources, sometime resolved issues can languish if reviewer don't feel its within their expertise, and often it falls the to small group of the core-devs from Inria. As Pharo grows more popular we may need some improved processes to reduce load on core-devs.
I believe that is an area that needs improving. But probably not right now.
I'd be interested in what you've seen work in other environments.
Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of direct and relevant experience there. We did code reviews at Canonical, but I would never apply the kind of process we used there in a community project.
I do believe it is essential that the path from "someone submits code" and "send code review" be as frictionless as possible. Code reviews are hard and time consuming. Any time spent not actually reading and commenting code is a put off.
Concretely, that means I think a good, interactive, actively maintained, web-based code review tool is essential. I heard good things about github. But since people in this community seem to have a strong bias towards doing everything in Pharo, that might not be such a good idea...
In any case, I think it should be easy to review code without loading the change in the image.
Have you seen these... http://pharo.org/contribute-propose-fix
I have seen it. But I did not feel that was relevant to me: I was not yet familiar with any of tools mentioned there, nor was I familiar with the policies surrounding code contributions.
I had seen it too, when exploring the issue tracker. And similarly, I felt it was not yet relevant to me. So I quickly forgot about it :-)
I will be sure to refer to those documents as my involvement and confidence increase.
Regards.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:26 AM, David Allouche <david@allouche.net> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:22 AM, David Allouche <david@allouche.net> wrote:
By the way, how do you guys do code reviews for code integrated into the core?
Its fairly informal. Once a Slice has been submitted to the Pharo5Inbox the associated Issue on Fogbugz is <Resolved> to "Fix review Needed" - people review it out and comment. Unfortunately with limited resources, sometime resolved issues can languish if reviewer don't feel its within their expertise, and often it falls the to small group of the core-devs from Inria. As Pharo grows more popular we may need some improved processes to reduce load on core-devs.
I believe that is an area that needs improving. But probably not right now.
I'd be interested in what you've seen work in other environments.
Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of direct and relevant experience there. We did code reviews at Canonical, but I would never apply the kind of process we used there in a community project.
I do believe it is essential that the path from "someone submits code" and "send code review" be as frictionless as possible. Code reviews are hard and time consuming. Any time spent not actually reading and commenting code is a put off.
Concretely, that means I think a good, interactive, actively maintained, web-based code review tool is essential. I heard good things about github. But since people in this community seem to have a strong bias towards doing everything in Pharo, that might not be such a good idea...
That has generally been the Smalltalk-way (since fixing things is 10 times more productive for us than another language), but there is a general recognition that with limited resources we can't do everything to provide the same infrastructure reliability as the big players. I *think* there is growing acceptance that github is probably the way to go and worth a try -- but *exactly* how it might interface with Pharo dev workflow is an open question. I think ideally we would have a github client tool in-Image, so it remains simple to look up senders and other implementors, but using the github web interface would be the first step. cheers -ben
In any case, I think it should be easy to review code without loading the change in the image.
Have you seen these... http://pharo.org/contribute-propose-fix
I have seen it. But I did not feel that was relevant to me: I was not yet familiar with any of tools mentioned there, nor was I familiar with the policies surrounding code contributions.
I had seen it too, when exploring the issue tracker. And similarly, I felt it was not yet relevant to me. So I quickly forgot about it :-)
I will be sure to refer to those documents as my involvement and confidence increase.
Regards.
participants (3)
-
Ben Coman -
David Allouche -
phil＠highoctane.be