Re: [cdt-dev] CDT 7.0 RC4 Candidate Available

[Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Schorn, Markus <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,
I expect that I would have problems finding a reviewer for every
non trivial patch. Nevertheless I find it important to enable the
review by attaching a patch to a bug.

This statement is most close to what I think. I am sure that if you ask for review another committer won't decline but it always takes to find a slot of in the schedule and fair amount of time and effort on the part of the reviewer. That will delay the process quite a bit. That is not to say that I am against reviews, they are very useful and we are asking for them and doing them for some changes.
 

At the same time I do support a policy that requires a review for every
checkin late in the release cycle (RC1, ...).

That sounds reasonable too.

Andrew

Markus.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Blackburn
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 9:26 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT 7.0 RC4 Candidate Available

> Importance: Low
>
> On 4 June 2010 20:00, John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We probably should at all stages, IMO. Quality over quantity.
>
> I completely agree. The only way to get us out of the build
> mess is to not allow large chunks of undocumented, untested
> code to be committed.
> The problem we have in these areas is the mountain of
> historical cruft that no one understands and I bet no one ever will.
>
> I'm all for having a policy that any non-trivial change
> should be approved by (at least) one other reviewer. It's a
> great mechanism to ensure that committers think about the
> change they're committing. And submitting patches to bugzilla
> already increases exposure making the committer think twice.
>
> Should we have a formal policy on this? Does anyone disagree with it?
>
> John's right, we need to aim for APIs and code quality like
> the platform.  It's only fair on the people that will
> eventually take over from us...
>
> Cheers,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev