diff options
| author | Stan Hu <stanhu@gmail.com> | 2016-10-07 19:02:07 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Stan Hu <stanhu@gmail.com> | 2016-10-07 19:02:07 +0000 |
| commit | 48099e07bf3d137dd389d56e4faa6ad7371670c6 (patch) | |
| tree | 6b7df703511c6326e9e9724e152b20623396cdeb /doc | |
| parent | c901936a829885263a602431e5762b0352073a2a (diff) | |
| parent | 52ca9bf600235459721fbcf16e4f582b839b3b37 (diff) | |
| download | gitlab-ce-48099e07bf3d137dd389d56e4faa6ad7371670c6.tar.gz | |
Merge branch 'improve-contributing' into 'master'
Improve the contribution and MR review guide
## What does this MR do?
This merge request improves the contributing and MR review guides following @stanhu's reply on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/6096#note_16537211.
## Why was this MR needed?
To clearly state that MR reviews can take multiple iterations but that as reviewers we should do our best to minimize the number of iterations and take over any MR that is set as "Merge when build succeeds" at some point.
See merge request !6739
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/code_review.md | 11 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/doc/development/code_review.md b/doc/development/code_review.md index 40ae55ab905..c5c23b5c0b8 100644 --- a/doc/development/code_review.md +++ b/doc/development/code_review.md @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ request is up to one of our merge request "endbosses", denoted on the ## Having your code reviewed +Please keep in mind that code review is a process that can take multiple +iterations, and reviewers may spot things later that they may not have seen the +first time. + - The first reviewer of your code is _you_. Before you perform that first push of your shiny new branch, read through the entire diff. Does it make sense? Did you include something unrelated to the overall purpose of the changes? Did @@ -55,6 +59,7 @@ request is up to one of our merge request "endbosses", denoted on the Understand why the change is necessary (fixes a bug, improves the user experience, refactors the existing code). Then: +- Try to be thorough in your reviews to reduce the number of iterations. - Communicate which ideas you feel strongly about and those you don't. - Identify ways to simplify the code while still solving the problem. - Offer alternative implementations, but assume the author already considered @@ -64,8 +69,10 @@ experience, refactors the existing code). Then: someone else would be confused by it as well. - After a round of line notes, it can be helpful to post a summary note such as "LGTM :thumbsup:", or "Just a couple things to address." -- Avoid accepting a merge request before the build succeeds ("Merge when build - succeeds" is fine). +- Avoid accepting a merge request before the build succeeds. Of course, "Merge + When Build Succeeds" (MWBS) is fine. +- If you set the MR to "Merge When Build Succeeds", you should take over + subsequent revisions for anything that would be spotted after that. ## Credits |