On 08/04/16 19:11, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Tom Hacohen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 07/04/16 09:39, Tom Hacohen wrote: >>> Dude, we've been through this already and this is not what we talked about. >>> >>> You just made everything extremely ugly and annoying to use all around. >>> Why did you *again* not let me have a look at it before pushing it? > > There was no point delaying the review to a larger crowd for how > macros and internals look like. They can obviously still be improved > and will be until the release. Felipe should already be looking at > your request.
Felipe ended up changing all of the eo test suite, and then changed it back again. There would have been work saved if only I was consulted before. I didn't say "delay the review to a larger crowd". I said consult the guy that has created and has been closely maintaining that particular component. Especially when doing API changes. Especially since the last change was reverted in its entirely (again, lost work) because no such consultation happened. > >>> Wrapper macros (although they would have doubled everything) would have >>> been much better here. Please add the compatible macros back. >>> >>> I expect to be talked to when changes are made to Eo API. Heck, even >>> notified, I got neither. > > All development has been done in a public branch on enlightenment git. > You should have seen activity on that branch for the past week every > time you do a git pull rebase. We used the power of git and obviously > it makes everything better ;-) On a more serious note, I absolutely > disagree with the logic that we have gate keeper for part of our API. > We are way to small of a community to start relying on one person for > any component. We use git, we can fix and improve code as we go. We do > use branch to get to a point where it is reviewable. clean enough, > tested and usable to be landed. Once there, we should move to master > where most people can actually see the change happening. That is absolutely not what I said. I didn't say put it on phab and wait until I review. That will kill me. What I want and asked for is to be notified and consulted with about changes to Eo APIs (and internals too tbh) so we can save time and also avoid clutter in the git log. As you can see, I'm arguing and getting things changed anyway, so why not talk before the work is done and wasted? A "hey Tom, I've been thinking about doing the promise thing like: X, what do you think?" or "hey, heads up, I worked on the promise thing in this branch, thoughts?" and if I don't reply within a day or two, push anyway, but a courtesy call would have been nice. > > Typically your comment on this commit are exactly on the point where I > think further development should happen in master. They do not impact > anyone using Eina_Promise API and are mostly internals improvements. > And I do think they are good improvements to do. They actually do change the API, and my comments on the previous incarnation of promise also changed API, so no, this is the key for clash and clutter land. We work in branches so we can clean things up before they show up in master and cause the least amount of disruption and clutter both in HEAD and history. > > This also means that everyone can now look at Eina_Promise API and > make comment. I will try to land small use of it next week in smaller > patch so that people can see how to use it in their API and maybe some > example also. They could have done it in the branch too, if you only emailed about it. I doubt many people would have even noticed this changed if it wasn't for my email. > >>> Cedric: this goes to you too, as you've signed off this commit and >>> pushed it. WTF. > > Yes, and I would still do it again. Landed commit are easy to review, > tested, do what they say they do and provide a feature we need. There > is sure better way to do it, but clearly there is no point to continue > in a branch where nobody look while we can now have broader review and > more feedback. > No one is looking at that branch because you haven't asked anyone to look! Relevant people are always looking at my branches because I tell them about them. I have a commit renaming the "efl_" namespace to "cedric_is_wrong_", it's in a branch but actually you convinced me, I'll push it to master so people can review, test and tell me how much they like it. Summary: 1. No one is looking in the branches because you haven't asked anyone to. 2. I hereby formally request to be at the very least notified about upcoming API changes to Eo. 3. I'll push the "efl_" to "cedric_is_wrong_" changes to master soon and worst case we'll revert. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/ gampad/clk?id=1444514301&iu=/ca-pub-7940484522588532 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
