Hi!
Ague Mill wrote (14 Nov 2012 09:42:05 GMT) :
> intrigeri:
>> Ague Mill:
>> > `feature/persistent_bookmarks` confirmed working and merged in
>> > `devel`.
>>
>> I'm very happy 0.15 will have this feature.
>>
>> Nitpicking: did I miss the call for review?
> That feature was implemented by Alesandro. I took care of the review.
> [...]
> I took care of the package upload, removed the now integrated patch from
> the branch, checked once more that it was working as intended.
This is great.
> Do you think an extra review is required in that case?
(Speaking as myself, not as the WAN.)
I'm not sure I would put it that way.
But I'm sure the way it went is not entirely satisfying to me.
Please let me explain how things went from my PoV.
I followed the process that lead to this great new feature from
a remote standpoint; I did not want to closely follow every iteration,
so I was waiting for it to reach a "good enough" state to give it
a try and have a look at the implementation. Reaching this checkpoint
state is generally expressed in the form of a review request sent on
tails-dev. This did not happen, or I missed it (sorry if that's the
case, again), so it feels like the first chance I have to look at
something once it is considered good enough for merging is... after
it's merged, the day before a freeze. So, from my point of view, the
whole process feels like rushing things in in a way that does not
leave much room for peer-review.
Also, my impression was that, given the amount of guidance you have
provided to Alesandro during the implementation process, you almost
acted as a co-implementer, so the situation gets blurry.
I'm not sure what I think is *required* (I mean: by our agreed upon
rules) in such neither-black-nor-white situations. I'm not sure I want
stricter or more precise rules that deal with every kind of situation.
I'm quite sure I don't want to endlessly list more and more
formal requirements.
But, I'm sure that *giving a chance* to other Tails developers to look
at a new feature *before it's merged*, without them having to follow
each development iteration, should be something we take seriously:
this is something I feed is needed to happily work together, to make
it easier for less-involved people to participate, and to make our
stuff better thanks to others' different skills and PoV.
Cheers!
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
