bundy

Jinmei,

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:12:09 -0700
神明達哉 <jinmei at wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> At Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:03:22 +0000,
> Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I mean all code should be looked at by:
> >
> > 1. The person(s) who wrote it
> > 2. A different person who reviews it
> 
> Okay.
> 
> > As you know from the BIND 10 work, this can catch bugs (both design
> > and implementation) and teach everyone involved in a review new
> > things. It has the side effect of improving knowledge about the
> > code, although that is possibly not as important if we start to see
> > people who just want to submit a single change and not actually
> > hack on the system for an extended time. :)
> 
> I basically agree, but I guess we'll also have to be even more careful
> about not making the review process a major bottleneck.  As this is a
> fully voluntary based, small-group effort, it's quite likely that we
> find it difficult to even have some development, let alone reviewing
> the result of it.  I don't have a specific suggestion right now, and
> I'd see how it goes for a while, but I guess we'll revisit the process
> some time later so it can be more realistic while not sacrificing
> quality too much.

Yes, I understand and agree.
 
> BTW: I just created a github ticket for a request for review:-)

Hm... 1500 new lines. It's going to take a bit of review. :-P 

I don't think I'll have time this week, but I'll try to get this
reviewed before the end of next week. 

A question... I see this was done as an "issue", instead of a "pull
request". I think the usual way to request a review with GitHub is
basically to create a pull request.

Cheers,

--
Shane