Author: Peter Todd 2013-10-04 11:53:00
Published on: 2013-10-04T11:53:00+00:00
In an email to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List in 2013, Mike Hearn made a request for developers to keep commits logically clean and separated when submitting large, complex pieces of work for review. He noted that while Git makes it easy to fork people's work off and create long series of commits that achieve some useful goal, code review is not one of them. He explained that reviewing things in sequence can be difficult if later code uses new APIs or behaviour changes introduced in earlier commits. Hearn suggested the use of Review Board - a dedicated open source code review tool with git[hub] integration and many neat features such as the ability to attach screenshots to reviews, side by side diffs and the submission of branches as single reviews. However, one advantage of using Github is that they are an independent third party and there may be risks associated with moving the code review to a server that is controlled with explicit review groups. Furthermore, given that Review Board remains cryptographically unverifiable, there may be disadvantages in operating it ourselves in that if the review server gets compromised we don't have a third-party to blame.
Updated on: 2023-06-07T17:26:24.277541+00:00