On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:20 PM Sergey Sharybin via Bf-committers <bf-committers@blender.org> wrote: > > Campbell, those are valid points, but here is what I propose: > > (a) Focus on making already-agreed-on topics public, go into more > specific cases later.
Sergey, sounds good. Since these rules are on our official wiki I'm raising a concern that it's not always practical to follow them. These kinds of proposals are quite open to interpretation (more than you might think at first glance). It makes doing code review *even less* of an attractive prospect when it's not obvious when an action can be both a reasonable common-sense response as well as a rule violation. There are situations I run into (since this proposal even) where I'm not sure if/how these policies should apply. I'd suggest that we aim to follow what's proposed (when practical), module owners/members developing an area should use their best judgement. If adding multiple iterations on the review process to meet some rigid policy seems a poor use of every-ones time - we should be able to avoid getting caught up in unnecessarily strict adherence to rules. > (b) Until the future of the Phabricator is known, do not spend too much > time in finding Phabricator-specific solutions for the cases we want to > cover. +1 -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
