On 07/06/07, David Crossley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gav.... wrote:
...
> Anyway, just wanted to nip this in the bud now, should I from now on revert > my thinking and review the patches before committing, even though this will > mean the patch just waits there a little longer ?
...
No, stick with "commit-then-review".
I agree. [...]
Doing "commit-then-review" does not mean "don't look at it beforehand".
Yes, in this case a quick review of the patch would have revealed that the patch itself was faulty and so we could have asked for a new patch. This would have been much faster than the time it took me to figure out what had gone wrong and to edit each file individually by hand. How much reviewing would you do of your own work before committing? I guess you would at least check that it worked and then commit. In this case just trying to run the code locally would have indicated a problem.
It is up to the patch applier to consider how much pre-commit review that they feel like doing.
Agreed, but at the very least, read it over to make sure it is correctly put together. Especially when it is an early patch since creating patches correctly is a fine art, I don't know anyone who has not made a few errors at first. Finally, as ever, no-one should feel that this is a problem in an open source community. We all make mistakes and all pick up the pieces for one another. I only highlight the issue in order to fine tune the process. So, thanks for taking the time to figure out how to apply the patch in the first place. Ross
