Developer meeting November 2010: Difference between revisions
From MoodleDocs
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
* Multiple ineffective sign-off levels. There is no point jumping through multiple levels of code review if its not done effectively. (Upon writing this I realise we need to just try it and make sure it doesn't become like this, rather than expecting it to fail--[[User:Dan Poltawski|Dan Poltawski]] 09:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)). | * Multiple ineffective sign-off levels. There is no point jumping through multiple levels of code review if its not done effectively. (Upon writing this I realise we need to just try it and make sure it doesn't become like this, rather than expecting it to fail--[[User:Dan Poltawski|Dan Poltawski]] 09:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)). | ||
* How to manage the code-review 'work-stack'? If there is a list of 'merge requests'? If we continue to use the tracker for this we're likely to get the problem of 'lost patches' sitting in bugs which have never been looked at by a core contributor. | * How to manage the code-review 'work-stack'? If there is a list of 'merge requests'? If we continue to use the tracker for this we're likely to get the problem of 'lost patches' sitting in bugs which have never been looked at by a core contributor. | ||
Revision as of 09:34, 23 November 2010
Developer meetings > November 2010 meeting
- Date: 07:00 UTC on 25 November 2010 - see the Moodle Developer Meeting calendar entry for conversion into your time zone
- Location: Elluminate Moodle Developers Meeting Room - login as guest by entering your email address, your actual name as display name and the password moodle
Everyone is welcome, though developers with CVS write access will be given preference if the room becomes full (normally not necessary).
Agenda
- Moodle 2.0 release
- Development:Git Migration
- Converting unit tests to PHP Unit -- I hope someone will tell us what the plan is with this.
- Heads up: Development:Question_Engine_2 coming in Moodle 2.1 -- Tim Hunt
- Proposal for a better cron infrastructure -- Penny or Tim -- if we run out of time, we could drop this, but it is a nice idea that was talked about a year ago, and it would be nice not to forget it.
Please add more items to the agenda!
Git Migration Concerns
There has been some discussion in the developer chat room about potential git workflows. Some immediate concerns about a workflow:
- Slow moving reviews. Especially for lesser known contributors, git makes reviewing and 'commiting' as an external contributor much easier, but code reviews are a social rather than technical problem. Time needs to be allocated to 'coaching' people who don't make the cut. The code review structure needs to be such that the top doesn't become a bottleneck.
- Multiple ineffective sign-off levels. There is no point jumping through multiple levels of code review if its not done effectively. (Upon writing this I realise we need to just try it and make sure it doesn't become like this, rather than expecting it to fail--Dan Poltawski 09:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)).
- How to manage the code-review 'work-stack'? If there is a list of 'merge requests'? If we continue to use the tracker for this we're likely to get the problem of 'lost patches' sitting in bugs which have never been looked at by a core contributor.
- Loss of 'kudos' for existing commiters. Like it or not, some respect comes with commit access. This can be replaced by reviewing roles having a place in the code review 'tree'.
