> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Wednesday 15 May 2002 12:00, Gerhard Froehlich wrote: > > Hi, > > > > >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the > > >committer to undertake initial quality control when they > > >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their > > >commit. If they do not know anything about the topic, then > > >they should not be taking on the patch - let someone else > > >do it. > > > > Who is someone else? Patches in bugzilla are very lonely in > > the moment. There are simply not applied. Why? Because there > > about 600 classes in Cocoon, about 10 active committers and > > nobody feels responsible. It's easy to say, oh I didn't > > wrote this code, therefor I can't apply this patch. But > > patches like NPE fixes, can be applied by every committer, I > > swear! > > Well, I guess every committer feels responsible for what he is committing. > Although this is good this is also the problem. Who can say he is fully aware > if the patch does not break anything else... If it's your code - well, then > you do know better what he is doing and if it still breaks something - well, > you are the one in charge... That's different when you apply a patch from > someone else... > > I guess bugfixes are not the problem but larger rewrites and additions... > > Simple "improvements" can easily break other stuff (as e.g. on of the last > esql improvements that took me a couple of hours to fix. No accusation but a > fact. And you we are all short in time...) > > Maybe we try too hard to keep HEAD stable? > > ...but I like a quite stable HEAD so it's easier to type "cvs update" without > the fear of breaking your current system ;-) > > So what to do, what to do... ?
Make and follow a plan: X:00 - X:19 Read morning emails X:20 - X:59 Review a patch ... :) Vadim > -- > Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
