Give the choice between the meant-to-be-serious guidelines, which I
think can be paraphrased as:
We really want to have a pretty open check-in policy. But this
means that you should be extra careful if you check something in.
...and the meant-to-be-funny chart that shows everything going through
code review, I think I'd
choose the code review. I hate code reviews as much as the next person,
but if you're working on a
real-world, widely-used, huge application like JDK, the need for quality
trumps the individual need to
avoid pain.
Hi Andy,
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 12:22 -0500, Andy Tripp wrote:
>/ >
/>/ I suppose this is more of a troll than a criticism, sorry about that.
/
No worries. We know trolls and how to deal with them.
We do have a flow chart that people have to follow when contributing to
GNU Classpath. It is all very formal really:
http://gnu.wildebeest.org/~mark/patch.png
<http://gnu.wildebeest.org/%7Emark/patch.png>
Seriously, follow the guidelines published at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/docs/hacking.html#SEC9
And at the developer wiki:
http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/ClasspathFirstSteps
and you will get a long way.
>/ Again, sorry for the rant/troll.
/
It was fun. Keep it cool!
Cheers,
Mark
