Revision as of 17:06, 15 February 2011

Potential Implementations

In each one of these cases, we could adopt the review workflow described below

In this case we describe the process assuming a Git-based implementation.

Kitware will create a separate Git repository containing
- One text file for each one of the files in the current ITK Manifest.
- The files will be named after the ITK files. For example
  - itkImage.h.txt will be the code review file for itkImage.h
The repository will contain at the top level, one directory per contractor, and under that directory we will replicate the monolithic directory tree structure of ITK with only the files that have been assigned to that contractor.
This text files will be populated by the code reviewers with the following standardize content

  STATUS: StatusKey (see table below)
  
  Arbitrary texts, as detailed as the reviewer deem necessary. it could be paragraphs.

This is a graph with borders and nodes. Maybe there is an Imagemap used so the nodes may be linking to some Pages.

For each file, a contractor will review the code following the Check list (reference here) and specify one of the following potential status

Pending: No review has been performed yet.
Rated: Review has been performed and it resulted into actions to be performed by a developer.
Done: Corrective actions have been taken. No further action required.

All files start in the Pending state.
From Pending to Rated: A reviewer will review the file following the CheckList (reference here), and identify actions to be taken, and will assign a developer to look into the details. The reviewer will assign a rating according to the list below.
From Rated to Done: The assigned developer will communicate back to the reviewer when the actions have been taken, the reviewer will verify the changes and, if satisfied, will set the status to Done.
From Pending to Done: A reviewer may make this transition if the rating is Good as defined in the rating section below.

Good: The file has been reviewed, and no change was required.
Minor: Minor typos. In this case the reviewer will fix the problems directly (and still submit them to Gerrit). Minor changes are defined a those that do not influence the API. (including doxygen documentation).
Major: File needs refactoring or major bug fixing. The reviewer must log a mantis and include the Bug number in the comments in the .txt review file, and the developer to which the bug has been assigned.
Remove: File must be removed (broke, obsolete, irreparable).

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 Rated;
 Done;
-Pending -> Rated [label="Major assigned to a developer"];
+Pending -> Rated [label="Major"];
-Pending -> Rated [label="Remove assigned to a developer"];
+Pending -> Rated [label="Remove"];
-Pending -> Done [label="Minor and Fixed"];
+Pending -> Done [label="Minor,Fixed"];
-Rated -> Done [label="Major fixed by developer, verified by reviewer"];
+Rated -> Done [label="Major,Fixed"];
 }
 </graphviz>