---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "smaug" <[email protected]> Date: Feb 20, 2016 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Suggested code review workflow To: "Josh Matthews" <[email protected]> Cc:
On 02/13/2016 07:26 AM, Josh Matthews wrote: > On 2016-02-12 6:16 PM, Olaf Buddenhagen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:21:46PM -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> >>> On 2/3/16 1:46 PM, Josh Matthews wrote: >>> >> >> https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Code-review >>>> >>> >>> Somewhere in there, one should read the commit messages too. Probably >>> before reading the code. And if it's not clear from the commit messages >>> what the goal of the code changes is, then they need fixing. >>> >> >> I noticed that the wiki hasn't been updated to incorporate this. Is >> there no consensus -- or just nobody dares to actually make the edit? >> ;-) >> >> -antrik- >> >> > I'm pretty sure nobody disagrees. Please feel free to make the change :) > (as a random comment, I never read multiline comments for Gecko. Only the first line + the bug number. It is the bug where the relevant information needs to be available. Whether it it available also elsewhere is less important, IMHO.) About the (3) in https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Code-review. It might not affect Servo so much yet, but whenever implementing or reviewing a patch to implement some - especially new - spec, both code author and reviewer need to think whether the spec makes sense, whether it is precise enough, and is backwards and forwards compatible enough. And file spec bugs when needed. Specs are untested pseudocode so they tend to contain bugs just like any other code. -Olli _______________________________________________ dev-servo mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
