1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
|
Reviewing proposed changes to Bazaar
####################################
All non-trivial code changes coming in to Bazaar are reviewed by someone else.
Anyone is welcome to review any patch. You don't need to have a full
understanding of the codebase to find problems in the code, the documentation,
or the concept of the patch.
Normally changes by core contributors are reviewed by one other core
developer, and changes from other people are reviewed by two core
developers. Use intelligent discretion about whether if the patch is trivial.
No one likes their merge requests sitting in a queue going nowhere: this
is pure waste. We prioritize reviewing existing proposals.
Canonical dedicates some staff time to providing prompt helpful reviews.
(See <http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/PatchPilot/>.)
From late 2009 on, we do all our code reviews through Launchpad's
merge proposal interface.
Reviewing proposed changes
==========================
There are three main requirements for code to get in:
* Doesn't reduce test coverage: if it adds new methods or commands,
there should be tests for them. There is a good test framework
and plenty of examples to crib from, but if you are having trouble
working out how to test something feel free to post a draft patch
and ask for help.
* Doesn't reduce design clarity, such as by entangling objects
we're trying to separate. This is mostly something the more
experienced reviewers need to help check.
* Improves bugs, features, speed, or code simplicity.
Code that goes in should not degrade any of these aspects. Patches are
welcome that only cleanup the code without changing the external
behaviour. The core developers take care to keep the code quality high
and understandable while recognising that perfect is sometimes the enemy
of good.
It is easy for reviews to make people notice other things which should be
fixed but those things should not hold up the original fix being accepted.
New things can easily be recorded in the bug tracker instead.
It's normally much easier to review several smaller patches than one large
one. You might want to use ``bzr-loom`` to maintain threads of related
work, or submit a preparatory patch that will make your "real" change
easier.
Checklist for reviewers
=======================
* Do you understand what the code's doing and why?
* Will it perform reasonably for large inputs, both in memory size and
run time? Are there some scenarios where performance should be
measured?
* Is it tested, and are the tests at the right level? Are there both
blackbox (command-line level) and API-oriented tests?
* If this change will be visible to end users or API users, is it
appropriately documented in NEWS?
* Does it meet the coding standards below?
* If it changes the user-visible behaviour, does it update the help
strings and user documentation?
* If it adds a new major concept or standard practice, does it update the
developer documentation?
* (your ideas here...)
Reviews on Launchpad
====================
Anyone can propose or comment on a merge proposal just by creating a
Launchpad account.
From <https://code.launchpad.net/bzr/+activereviews> you can see all
currently active reviews, and choose one to comment on. This page also
shows proposals that are now approved and should be merged by someone with
PQM access.
<https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Review> explains the various merge proposal
states. Note that we don't use state *Approved* until the patch is completely
ready to merge.
Landing approved changes
========================
Once a merge proposal is approved and finished, it's sent to PQM (the patch
queue manager) which will automatically test and integrate it. The recommended
way to start this off is by running the ``feed-pqm`` script from
<https://launchpad.net/hydrazine/>.
|