Le 28/06/2018 à 09:56, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
Hello Taher,
Taher Alkhateeb <[email protected]> writes:
A few comments:
1- I would suggest to try and avoid in the future committing any
design changes to the framework without discussing it properly in the
mailing list first
The limit between a “regular” and “design” change can sometimes hard to
define, so I just want to emphasize the *try and avoid* part.
2- I think it would be better to revert this work. I noticed in the
JIRA for example that Mathieu Lirzin asked for some time to review his
work when you just committed his work without checking what he wanted
to do, and he later provided refactoring patches.
3- I would recommend providing a summary of what you want to commit.
The commit was too long and I don't want to read line-by-line
everything in the code to understand what was achieved. Let's first
discuss in here what is being done, agree on the general direction,
and THEN apply a commit.
Those are my recommendations, and I don't know about the rest of the
folks opinion here so I invite everyone else to have their input.
I agree with those recommendations.
Yes we already established such rules long time ago.
Sometimes, maybe by laziness or eagerness, some of us tend to forget (me
included I must say)
A proper discussion on the dev ML for important changes is always a good thing
to do.
Thanks Taher for this clear and detailed call to order
As Mathieu outlined the line between a simple and an important change may vary
depending on your POV.
In case of doubt (of course you need to have one, eagerness does not help
sometimes) start a convo here ;)
Jacques
