From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= Subject: Re: help with distributed workflow/signoff Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:03:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Brock Peabody X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 14 23:03:34 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZ977-0000VJ-6d for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:03:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757464Ab0GNVD1 convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:03:27 -0400 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:48821 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754160Ab0GNVD0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:03:26 -0400 Received: by iwn7 with SMTP id 7so181845iwn.19 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QvAWmH9tGMWBXEgovnB6D4IkAthCjIziE8k0MztY/sM=; b=fiUcoljEuCa7EIT6TBkDfvamv8cHpZv3QPITSDWYD/IK9A5IreSW80Glej5NWNzfrX fvnl0/UztkKuCgo+fR4l6dr5jGtq59TS3O37PLnnDdwo/01sleGZbHwHTUrISENqr2BH gQl2s0ddookR5IehM5/qN/sMnVvJ7rqBLzeho= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UICVXwUh4yr0UA1fmMc3KVK2CFqtRD6oF1oNgojuRGUmhVw5PuB4LCIwX1fdhvhaJW z3EsjXpIYFGgnDVD0FNLFjPHEom709tQf6QOa02mZ3tPJgzcNW5du3IMfmpcM32ETxnR EUH/vl3jlDyXKcO6KWU+wsd7Ja7dG6jYagbsE= Received: by 10.231.31.7 with SMTP id w7mr17948505ibc.83.1279141405703; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.166.79 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:03:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 18:06, Brock Peabody = wrote: > Hi Avery, > > Avery Pennarun gmail.com> writes: > >> For an open source project, where most contributions are by voluntee= rs >> and need to have their patches reviewed multiple times before >> submission - and frequently, more patchsets are rejected than applie= d >> - this works reasonably well. =C2=A0For a company where (in my exper= ience >> at least) most people's patches *are* applied, and the ratio of >> reviewers to coders is much lower, that's much less workable. =C2=A0= And >> unfortunately the elegant looking multiple-signed-off-by or acked-by >> lines don't work so well for that. > > I think you've hit the nail on the head here. =C2=A0In our environmen= t, commits are > frequent and signoffs prompt. =C2=A0Revisions are very rarely rejecte= d, and will > never pass through more than one reviewer except in extreme cases. =C2= =A0Contributors > will have little tolerance for per-commit time or complexity overhead= incurred > from the process. Well, consider that even if you push most patches through, the peer review you get from having a setup similar to Git's own might very well be worth it. Everyone makes mistakes, having a second set of eyeballs to look at your code eliminates a lot of that. That may not be acceptable to your corporate culture, but consider that most big corporations (e.g. Google) do detailed code review before anything gets commited to the master repository.