[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure

[Stéfan van der Walt]

2009/2/23 Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>:
> A) Do we agree in general to a more disciplined tests / review / accept cycle.
> B) What specifically are the problems that y'all are having, and what
> options are there for solving them.

Current workflow:

1. Cook up a patch
2. Apply the patch or, if you are not a dev, upload to trac

So, currently, unreviewed, untested code ends up in SciPy, or
languishes on Trac for a long time.

Proposed workflow:

1. Cook up a patch
2. Attach the patch (or a URL to the patchset/branch) to the issue
tracker with a REVIEW tag
3. Ping the mailing list or IRC to request a review (rinse and repeat)

Workflow for dev:

1. Request a list of patches ready for review: review
  - Has tests [check]
  - Has docs [check]
  - Does what it is supposed to do [check]
2. Add a POSITIVE_REVIEW or NEGATIVE_REVIEW tag as appropriate
3. Request a list of patches ready to be merged (code can be merged if
seen by two pairs of eyes: reviewer + committer, reviewer + reviewer,
etc.  In the end it must have "positive_reviews - negative_reviews >=
2").  Review the patch (this adds one pair of eyes) and merge if
appropriate.

That's the rough idea.  Comments welcome.

Cheers
Stéfan