My point was rather that it shouldn't even reach review, and was more suggesting I'm giving up on trying to fix it that continuing.
I do think a review process is not realistic to expect, which is all the more reason that if individual committers are going to dump code in directly, that it at least pass basic checks available in IDEs. This isn't happening here, and despite some discussion, hasn't changed. Ted I think you made an offhand comment that you encountered an independent review of the code base and it was viewed as fair-to-poor quality. I encounter the same, and I agree. It's a real barrier to the project going forward; if you don't 'trust' the code, can't easily change or understand the code, it discourages using or building on it. I am not sure it's truly fixable at this point; such is life. This is mostly a bag of bits of people's code. This is why, for example, I'm doing my own new development in a separate project. But still worth striving for quality, for those that want to continue to work on this project. On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Sean you can always keep cleaning this but the root cause is many, and > issues like this will slowly creep in over time. > > One of the root cause is that reviewing is hard in apache at the moment. I > am really hoping we move to a set of tools that allows any contributor just > to make changes -> send to review -> (get responses from jenkins) -> rework > -> resend patch -> get approval from a committer -> submit. > > If you ask me to inspect a diff submitted on jira with absolutely no time > available in day time. I will just look for general correctness. I would > like to see static analysis output directly from jenkins, when someone > checks in a patch. > > Robin > ------ > Robin Anil
