On ... wrote: >... > Was there any discussion about this overcommit behaviour?
This is the second or third time that I've seen "was there any discussion" raised as a point. This raises a small yellow flag for me. We all make changes to the codebase, and many of them are *NOT* discussed before hand. We simply do what we think is best for Subversion. But raising the spectre of "did you talk to 'us' before doing this" seems to intrude on the rights/responsibilities that we have as committers. It seems to be erecting a gate. Subversion has always been commit-then-review (CTR). Changes are made by the developers, and then subject to review by the other devs and interested watchers. The only real time that we have requested review *before* commits is for large new features (e.g. patch, obliterate, etc). But even then, a lot of work is typically done to "hide" the work until it matures. We've sometimes used branches to await maturity (but IMO, that usually fails because people tend to NOT review branch work). Of course, it is completely legit to ask "is there prior research/discussion/input that went into this feature that you can point me to [so I can educate myself]", but I'm a bit wary of situations where it seems to be implying that a change should not have been made because there was no discussion. We make changes. We break the code. We make it worse. We fix it, and move on. Cheers, -g
