Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes

["Daniel Megert" <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mickael, that's
a good approach which works fine with me.

As for the review,
yes a second person besides the owner must give a code-review+1 (or+2),
but for mass changes with (apparently) trivial code changes I would be
OK if only random samples are reviewed.

Dani



From:
       Mickael
Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       "eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       19.06.2019
18:53
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
Sent
by:        eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi,

My 2c below ;)

About !longChain.isEmpty() vs longChain.size()
> 0, I favor the first one because isEmpty() is theorically a O(1) operation
while size() is a O(n). Of course, most of smart enough implementations
have this optimized and make size() a O(1), but there is usually no guarantee
it is so. So size() is more expensive that isEmpty() and should be preferred.
About readability, I understand the concern
and I would like to suggest an alternative for that case: longChain.isEmpty()
== false, which seems to have the qualities requested by all parties.

About requiring a review for mass changes,
+1.
About not allowing mass change after
some milestone, +1.

Cheers


-- 
Mickael Istria
Eclipse
IDE developer, for Red
Hat Developers
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc