Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Time for Voting?

I think this is a terrible idea for patches, but a good idea for features.  

The patch process can be slow enough for some people involved without having to paralyze a particular component with either a rubber stamp approval or nickel & diming implementation.  
Instead of increased process on the patch list, I would suggest better standards for documenting and explaining the features.  Perhaps patches cannot be applied before a spec is reviewed and approved.  

Personally, I have a huge amount of work (all implementation) that I need to get done over the next couple of months, and I cannot fathom changing how we work this late into 1.2 without breaking our schedule completely.  

Vote v = new Vote( -1 );


Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/07/2003 05:39 PM

Please respond to

Re: [cdt-dev] Task Tags on Project Properties Page/Time for Voting?

Two points,

1) Sean, please send messages to this list as plain text.  The digest gets
messed up when you don't.

2) Good point on the TODO tags.  This is another feature that went in
without proper review.  Also, whatever you are doing Sean with natures
needs to be reviewed (every C/C++ project should have the cnature, if you
need new natures, do that instead).

I'm starting to think that it is time to start voting on patches.  New
features are getting in through the patch list without review.  With so
many contributors putting work in, and I appreciate everyone's efforts in
this, but I think the committers need to start clamping down on what they
are committing.  In the end, the CDT needs to be of the highest quality
since we are including it in commercial products and to do that we need to
show constraint.

I would suggest that each patch needs the agreement of at least two
committers (preferably from different companies) with no descenters.
Essentially every committer has a veto.  The PMC should have the right to
overrule any vetoes to make sure we don't get stuck in an impasse.  I'm
not sure if this is the eclipse way, but it'll ease us into a bit of
formality here.


Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Sean Evoy/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/07/2003 05:09 PM
Please respond to


[cdt-dev] Task Tags on Project Properties Page

Now that I am thinking about property pages, what was the motivation for
allowing the user to set task tags for a specific project? Obviously, this
is a workspace preference, and there is UI support to add, remove and edit
tags in the preference page. So, what work-flow are we supporting by
allowing the user to override this at the project level? Do we really
think that a lot of users are going to change only the priority of a tag
frequently enough to justify another property page? Or are they going to
create an overridden TODO tag just for one project? The reason I ask is
that currently the tag property page is associated with the cnature. If a
project does not have the cnature, this page will not show up.

Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

cdt-dev mailing list

Back to the top