Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes

["Sarika Sinha" <sarika.sinha@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As agreed by many
people on this thread, I would like to reiterate the point that we should
not engage in unnecessary cleanups after M1 in any component. Not limited
to JDT as we have seen a change in platform https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/144099/can cause regression in other dependent components.

I recently see
some active cleanup changes in the last development week of M3:
https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/147411/
https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/144540/
https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/147702/

Merge could have
been easily postponed to the next release.

Thanks & Regards,
Sarika





From:
       "Sarika
Sinha" <sarika.sinha@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
       20/06/2019
09:58 AM
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
Sent
by:        eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

There are few points to be considered
-
1. Problem is not with the trivial code changes, problem is in managing
the merge conflicts either during this mass change by the contributor or
by other contributors after this mass change is released. (As I have seen
it happening this week where contributor is struggling to rebase the mass
change gerrits)
2. This merging turns to be an evil specially for JDT repositories where
new Java version work happens in a different branch (due to legal constraints).

I am OK with the mass changes in M1 but it should be a call of the component
based on the timeline and other feature development going on in parallel
like JDT.

Thanks & Regards,
Sarika

"Daniel
Megert" ---06/20/2019 06:01:32 AM---Thanks Mickael, that's a good
approach which works fine with me. As for the review, yes a second per

From: "Daniel Megert" <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 06/20/2019 06:01 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc]
Review of mass changes
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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