Hi, >>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...
Yes we're responsible but not failure free, or? Ok you applied a broken patch. Now it's your reponsibility to fix it with the contributor, when you have the time. Nobody says you have to do it ASAP (but it should compile at least!). Simply "own" the bug in bugzilla and "assign" it to your email address. I did 4 times last weeks. Now I'm responsible for 2 bugs (they are more additions). Don't think in ways like "I'm in charge". Nobody can hurt you seriously, here ;-). >I guess bugfixes are not the problem but larger rewrites and additions... Agree ... but they must get re-viewed and applied somehow. If not, Cocoon will stand still and the community breaks. >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? That's the point. But nobody stated this, or? IMO the HEAD branch can and must be unstable in the moment. IMAO people have a to great respect for the codebase. >...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... ? Doing it! Greets Gerhard ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gerhard Fröhlich IBM Account Austria - 00/627 BIS e-business integration services IBM Austria / Vienna A-1020 Vienna, Obere Donaustrasse 95 Tel: ++43 1 21145 4818 Fax: ++43 1 21145 4191 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
