David E Jones wrote: > Adam, > > Your second email sounds more like code monitoring than ownership. Is that > more of what you had in mind?
Hm, yes, monitor might be a better term. > As far as whether these constraints are considered a policy or an obligation > for other committers, I guess we'd have to vote on that. I don't think we > have anything setup (yet) to allow individuals to create obligations for > others. I wouldn't use a sledgehammer. It would always be a training class, whenever something changed that causes coverage to drop. Eventually I would hope others learn what I have tried to do here. The reason someone writes code, is that they are trying to solve a need. Saying "Take this code and shove it" is wrong. It is obviously useful. So, you have to work with what they have tried to do. (ps: I am not saying you said anything like this, just talking in generalities) > As a labour saving device you might consider putting some information in > these files themselves so people have a chance to collaborate with you on > this, and you don't have to worry so much about watching it, especially a > year or two from now when this thread has faded from even our fondest dreams. > Useful information might include the coverage status, where the tests are, > how to run and test for coverage, etc (I think all of these would be > one-liners in the file). The term you are looking for here is annotations.
