Pull requests and review on every merge to master

Antranig Basman antranig.basman at colorado.edu
Wed Nov 30 19:39:45 UTC 2011

Hi Colin - sounds like a great plan to me. How about a 3 month review period? I think it should be clear by 
then whatever the implications of the policy are.

On 30/11/2011 10:33, Colin Clark wrote:
> Hi all,
> I haven't heard any further comments about this. So far, contributors seem interested in but cautious about the idea.
> We'll only know for sure if we try it out. I'd like to propose that we test this "100% review" approach with Infusion for six months, and assess how it well it has worked in May.
> Any complaints/concerns/comments?
> Colin
> On 2011-11-14, at 2:32 PM, Colin Clark wrote:
>> I am interested in the idea that, as Justin points out, this new proposal might serve as a bit of an equalizer. Regardless of being a contributor or a formal committer, we all go through the same general workflow. Code in a personal repository, make a pull request for inclusion into the project repository, and get reviewed by a peer. At the same time, I also see the argument about resources. Can we scale the review process to a point where it can be done in a timely manner for each new change to Infusion?
>> Any reason not to just try it and find out?

More information about the fluid-work mailing list