Skip to main content

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

If we didn't schedule time for making sure we know what we're doing, then 
that's another problem.

O.K., I'm no big fan of big process either.  But then, we as committers 
really need to make sure we can tell a bug fix from an already approved 
feature from a new feature sneaking in.  I think we can do it but our 
track record isn't very good.

At any rate, I will be putting up any of my patches that represent 
significant changes in APIs, user experience, partner experience up for a 
vote.  I feel one coming now...

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

John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/07/2003 06:13 PM
Please respond to


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