From XiphWiki
Revision as of 16:16, 18 August 2015 by MrZeus (talk | contribs) (→‎Team reviews)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a proposal for a more flexible review process. It is a set of guidelines for the most appropriate approach for different types of changes. Above all, use your judgement.


  • A) Full review: Same as current process. Can be based on Rietveld, "git format-patch", or a pull request
  • B) Post-review: Code gets committed to repo first, committer nags reviewer weekly if necessary
  • C) Design review: Discuss with original author (and possibly others) for the principle of a change, can (and probably should) be done even before doing the work
  • D) No review: self-explanatory


  • 0) Full-review on anything the committer has reasons to believe would be controversial, buggy, ...
  • 1) Generally no review on comments/whitespace/style/documentation
    • Except potentially when changing Doxygen API comments
  • 2) Post-review on code that is already badly broken, or on simple bug fixes
  • 3) No review on initial commit of new stuff that isn't being called
    • Full-review required to hook any code not reviewed because of point 3
    • If code in point 3 breaks the build, it gets fixed immediately or removed
    • No review on new tools until they get used by other people
  • 4) Code that is (according to the committer) highly unlikely to break things or that is trivially testable gets post-review
  • 5) Code that may have subtle implications gets full review
  • 6) Refactoring of someone else's code gets design review, followed by either post-review (or full review if requested during design review)
  • 7) Disruptive work (e.g. block switching) gets both design review and full review.
  • 8) Most build system changes get no review (unless point 0 applies)
  • 9) Post-review on test code


Team reviews

  • 1) Once in a while, we should pick a piece of code
  • 2) Original author cleans up code, adds comments
  • 3) Code discussed with entire team
  • 4) Suggestions for improvement (with emphasis on algo)