From: "Magesh Umasankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What frustrates me as a committer: > 1. Bug reports that are not proven as > bugs (using Junit tests).
For this to happen, it means that every ANT user needs to download the sources from CVS to get the test framework for ANT. It needs to understand the framework (not easy). Never mind being aware and understand JUnit. (Not something that every user needs to know). I think this is a very hi mark. If you say, submit a buildfile that shows the problem, well that is a different issue. > 2. Patches to bugs/enhancement requests > that do not contain Junit tests that > prove that the patch fixes the bug, by > providing JUnit tests that fail before > patch is applied and pass after patch > is applied. I have no problem with this in principle. But again I think a buildfile showing the problem should be enough. After all external users do not need to learn our automated QA before they can do something. > 3. Patches that do not care about backwards > compatibility. How many of those have been rejected officially anotated on Bugzilla and indicating to the submitter what the problem is? You cannot assume that everyone in the world has the same mindset as the submitters about Java 1.1. I mean how many people rememner any more whether this or that API was in 1.0 or 1.1. This is why you guys are committers and the rest are not. > 4. Patches that rely on the committer to > perform documentation patches, if any. Send them back with a note. But speak about it. > 5. Patches to tasks that I cannot compile > myself or execute myself because of > dependencies on external tools. > So what do you want, that people do not try to fix things? This is one of the reasons I have pushed so much for <antlib> because this problem is due to the complete lack of modularity of the current source. Once ANT-DEV accepted those tasks in the first place, you are stuck with it, unfortunately. > I know it may be asking for a lot, but, if the > patch contains lots of tests, documentation > patches and the code patch as well, it would > get committed faster. > But if you were to anotate the bugs with what you think is missing, then maybe you will get the missing things sooner. Maybe we need additional states for a bug (e.g., "Incomplete PATCH Submission"). > With all this said, I did do a sweep > of BugZilla patches a month or so back, > IIRC and applied all of those that > I was comfortable with - so I would say > patches haven't been lingering there for > a very long time. > Did you tell the submitters the problems you found on the other bugs? Jose Alberto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
