From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brock Peabody Subject: Re: help with distributed workflow/signoff Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 14 23:47:10 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 1OZ9nI-0003Co-6S for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:47:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757260Ab0GNVrB convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:47:01 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:34808 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756985Ab0GNVrA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:47:00 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZ9n6-00036l-O9 for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:46:57 +0200 Received: from proxy-nj1.bloomberg.com ([69.191.241.47]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:46:56 +0200 Received: from brock.peabody by proxy-nj1.bloomberg.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:46:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 69.191.241.47 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason gmail.com> writes: > 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. >=20 > 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. Yes, that's a good point. We are trying to improve our code review pro= cesses, and I think switching to git is going to help with that down the road. = I don't want to make the switch to git and a heavier (if better) process at the= same time, however, as it would decrease the chance of either being accepted= =2E