On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Filipe David Manana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: >> In my opinion all of the changes in Benoit's commit belong in CouchDB, I >> simply haven't gotten around to introducing them. I do think that the right >> way to commit them is to separate the patch into a series of independent, >> isolated changesets. > > I think it's something good to have too, and I doubt anyone has > something against a more OTP compliant organization. > > My concerns were: > > 1) The patch introduced 2 distinct changes: supervision tree and > handling of configuration changes; Like you and Paul said before, it > should be spitted into separate patches; > > 2) Bigcouch has many changes compared to the standard CouchDB. Maybe > this patch only worked fine along with some of those other > differences; > > 3) While the supervision and configuration changes handling approaches > Bigcouch uses work, maybe the developers were aware of existing > limitations and didn't recommend it for standard CouchDB; > > 4) I believe that Adam is the one with more knowledge and production > experience with supervision trees and OTP best practices. Therefore he > should give his approval before introducing these changes > >> >> I think that the practice of filing a JIRA ticket for each non-trivial >> commit (aka the fdmanana method) is reasonable and not too onerous. >> Detailed commit messages describing the reason for the change (aka the >> davisp method) are also a good idea for the changes we're discussing here, >> as they improve the interaction between CouchDB and the OTP subsystem in >> subtle but important ways. >> >> I don't want us to move to a strict RTC procedure; the lazy consensus we've >> been using so far has worked just fine in my opinion. Best, > > Agreed. > >> >> Adam > > > > -- > Filipe David Manana, > [email protected], [email protected] > > "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. > Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. > That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." >
This thread is already closed for me. I'm the first to call for a review process. Though sometimes, since it was done, someone could just read the code and test and eventually ask for split, or rever with perfectly good reason not just because of a process that is ignored sometime for good reason too. Or maybe we could just remove the word "relax" from our vocabulary. - benoît
