I think we should start a discussion about these types of commits. I have concerns and problems with the way commits are getting done at the moment. Meanwhile, I also agree with Jacopo on the need for a thorough review instead of these _bulk_ commits without looking carefully at all possible affected locations in the code base. I mean even with extreme care we sometimes catch deeply hidden bugs.
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Michael Brohl <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > The lack of code documentation is not a free ticket to just change the > code behaviour without proper analysis. > > The right process should be > > 1. discuss > > 2. provide a patch > > 3. let others review/comment > > 4. decide > > 5. commit > > It is really dangerous to easily change code like this. > > Jacques, please be not so hasty with committing stuff. We have had a lot > of similar cases with reverts, committing half done solutions and such > lately. And please be aware that others might not have so much time to > follow every commit in detail, analyze and comment promptly. > > It really worries me because we lose quality and it's not easy to detect > errors and changed functionality in such a complex project. And don't rely > too much on the tests as we don't have such a high test coverage. > > Thanks for some more patience, > > Michael > > > Am 24.03.17 um 14:13 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> [...] >>> If we (both and All) agree on collaborating to document on purpose >>> swallowed exceptions, even when you are not directly concerned, then I >>> agree to revert my changes, deal? >>> >> >> We are not negotiating: I have simply asked you to revert the changes in >> which you have changed the functional behavior of the system without >> testing OR test the new behavior and confirm it is working fine. >> >> In general I like the effort of improving this old code containing >> swallowed exceptions by providing more comments, documentation etc... or >> completely refactoring it; but this has to be done with proper testing. >> >> I hope this clarifies my request. >> >> Jacopo >> >> > >
