Hello fellow Fedorans! As you are probably aware, we have a rule (unspoken? Not sure if it's formally documented or not) that pull requests in the infrastructure group should be reviewed by another infra member before they are merged. This is a sound policy in my mind, but I've been thinking about a problem that I've observed that I don't have a solution to. When I review pull requests that other people write against Bodhi, I am able to give much higher quality feedback than I am when I review pull requests on our other projects, simply because I spend a lot of time in the Bodhi code and am aware of how a lot of it works. For example, I might suggest "hey, there's a function over in bodhi.server.util that does what you are doing here - why not use that instead?". However, when I review code in other projects I am much more limited since I don't know the code for all of our projects very deeply. Mostly, I can only make generic comments, or maybe offer some Python hints here and there. I don't actually have any proposal of what should change here. I think reviewing code is good, and I think we should keep doing it. I just wanted to share an observation I've made when I review code. If anyone has any ideas on how we could improve this I'd love to hear. Maybe it's a problem without a solution, but it can't hurt to think about it together a bit just in case there are some good ideas out there ☺
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
