Thorsten Scherler wrote:
It seems we prefer to kill a momentum that arises (and that somebody had
a hard time to start) by starting a debate on principles. Latest example
is the lenya forrest integration momentum (which should be the base for
DOCO). What happend to the "Commit-then-review" method for
decision-making?
I have a great deal of sympathy with this. I also recognise there should
be a balance between making major contributions and ensuring those
contributions are well thought through. This is a difficult thing to
balance. We do get it wrong sometimes.
My response here is not intended as an argument, but an attempt to add a
little balance to this particular position, as I said, I have much
sympathy with Thorstens intentions with this mail and add my support to
that intention.
We say one step at a time, which is perfectly alright, but still we need
to do the first step. If somebody offers to do the first step then try
to lead his way and not building barriers.
Building barriers is certainly the *wrong* balance.
It seems we (committers) open issues that could have been fixed at the
same time as we opening them. Just go ahead and fix it and save the
resources of the ASF and the project (every issue produces overhead:
mail, time, ...).
Speaking personally I know I open issues that I see whilst working on
other parts of code. When I'm working on one job I cannot start fixing
things that are not directly related to that job. Creating an issue is a
way of logging the issue so it is not forgotten.
I suspect the same is true for everyone. To fix an issue requires
testing (see the bug I introduced in views with my *.source.xml patch
that I did for a specific job but clearly did not test enough).
Lets please live again our commit-then-review method for
decision-making.
(now I am speaking personally...)
If I'm not sure of the best way to implement something I will always ask
questions first. For major changes I will *always* ask questions first,
I don't like doing something twice and I want to ensure my contributions
are the right thing to do.
For smaller contributions, yes, I agree, commit-then-review.
Ross
