Re: Parseable tracking of code contributions.

On Jul 13, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:

> kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
>
>> Any objections to doing this? Would anyone find it burdensome to
>> follow such conventions? I think we've grown to the point where we
>> need some kind of automation for monitoring contributors, otherwise
>> we're liable to let people fall through the cracks.
>>
>
> I've been using Submitted By: and Approved By: for quite some time,
> and I think it's a good thing, but I think getting overly specific
> about stuff like Analysis By: and Reviewed By: is going a bit far.

I have to admit, I don't understand the difference between "Analysis"
and "Review". Seems like hair-splitting. Nor do I understand the
need for "Approved by", except in situations where we're tracking
votes (like backporting patches).

Why not just

    Patch by:
    Reviewed by:

I mean, aren't analysis and review the same thing? And if the change
was committed to the repository, then isn't it safe to assume that it
was approved not only by the reviewers, but most likely the person
doing the commit?

I think Garrett is right, we're spiraling down the path of micro-
management.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 14 16:52:45 2005