Publishing code reviews
tobrien at discursive.com
Thu Oct 11 23:38:16 UTC 2007
On 10/11/07, Peter B. Kessler <Peter.Kessler at sun.com> wrote:
> Tim O'Brien wrote:
> > On 10/11/07, *Mark Reinhold* <mr at sun.com <mailto:mr at sun.com>> wrote:
> > > Would we need to somehow filter out the webrevs which
> > > contain closed sources?
> > Yes. That's a Sun-internal problem, though, so let's discuss it
> > internally.
> > That's interesting, what sort of code is closed? Is there ever going
> > to be a case where a webrev contains certain sections that are public
> > and certain sections that are private? since you mentioned it on a
> > public list, could you give us a sense of what the public is missing?
> Think of the code we can't release because of the encumberances.
> If we have to make changes in that code, we need to get reviews,
> but we can't ask the community for help with those reviews.
> Clearly the less code we have that we can't put in the open the
> better. But as long as that set is non-empty, it's something we
> have to deal with, internally.
Ok, so just to clear it up for the non-Sun folks this would be things like
the font rasterization stuff that is still encumbered. Ideally the
encumbered code shrinks over time, and there's less of a chance of a webrev
spanning encumbered and non-encumbered code. I'd assume that you'll
continue to use the internal review systems just for those code reviews.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss