C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 09/26/2014 12:34 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> Not being Mike, here is my opinion anyway: I'm +1 on your proposal. > > I'm late to the party, but this all sounds great.
I need to decide for myself: should *I* volunteer to review it? As a member of our community of Subversion developers, I will soon be expected to support and maintain a new release of our code base. To play my part, I want to be satisfied that what we produce is progressing in a reasonably sane direction. Sometimes I review other people's code; more often I trust that somebody else will do so. And normally that works out OK -- somebody does review most changes, probably, and any issues get addressed, and that's enough for me. On this occasion, if we need more volunteers to review it in order to contribute to the community's shared understanding then I will consider doing so. But there is a small problem: I have very little awareness of who reviews what, so it's hard to know if that investment of effort is necessary. So I want to ask, please: *** Who has reviewed this or intends to do so? And for what aspects -- overall design, compatibility/upgrade issues, threading issues, style, ...? *** Once a few people have reviewed the code, there will be enough people qualified to vote on it, but at the same time there will also be enough people to have a reasoned discussion and I would hope and expect they will settle any issues by consensus. In the end, ideally, there should be no need for a vote. It seems to me that the real objective behind calling for a vote in this case is to call for review. - Julian
