[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions
- From: Christian Campo <christian.campo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:31:32 +0000
- Accept-language: de-DE, en-US
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AQHRIq+m+JGPGBWbbE6eRDNOZK9oHp6jDCSAgAAWx4CAAAKdAA==
- Thread-topic: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions
- User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/184.108.40.206005
Wouldnt it be worth to hear what the IP Team has to say why this took so
long ? I see that Sharon appologized on the CQ that it took so long. That
made me believe that this was an exception.
Does every CQ with 1000 lines take so long ? What is the experience of
others about reviews with code contributions.
As I remember vaguely (and that might be incorrect) the IP team runs
automatic scans over the code, but I am not sure what else they do.
I for once believe the work of the IP Team is important and one of the
core values of the EF vs say Github and I take it serious.
Just my 2 cents
Am 19.11.15, 11:22 schrieb "cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
on behalf of Sievers, Jan" unter
<cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
>If everybody tells me there are ways to dodge around that rule (and of
>course I know there are), the question arises why do we have the rule in
>the first place. Seems a little absurd to me.
>the effort is not minimal if I have to artificially split up commits.
>Or maybe you expect me to explain to contributors:
>"look, we have this process but nobody takes it serious anyway. so please
>split up your commit into several < 1000 LOC chunks" ?
>On 19/11/15 11:00, "cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on
>behalf of Ed Willink" <cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on
>behalf of ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the
>>tests as a separate contribution gets you twice the limit with minimal
>>Perhaps a 10000 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable code
>>such as tests and build tools.
>> Ed Willink
>>On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:
>>> in the course of
>>> we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus
>>>needed a CQ.
>>> It took about one month to review it.
>>> I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load,
>>>so the following is in no way a criticism of the
>>> people who actually do the legal review.
>>> Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule.
>>> IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives
>>>for a thriving opensource project.
>>> Here is why I think so:
>>> The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to
>>>prove it works.
>>> This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to
>>> Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms of
>>> However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you
>>>want to attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit.
>>> Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish
>>>them with an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be
>>> Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because
>>>technically you can split up any commit into any number
>>> of smaller commits below the 1000 line limit.
>>> Best Regards,
>>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>>>unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>>To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>>from this list, visit
>cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>from this list, visit
fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
Vorstand: JÃrgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759