Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > <david> > we don't *have* a "full review process" in any meaningful sense of the > term. Especially not for "cleaning up" things. > > As evidence, consider: > http://codereview.appspot.com/1724041/show > > - big initial patch > - lots of comments about splitting up the patch into smaller, > easily-understood portions > - contributor (an unknown person, BTW) does what we ask > - NOBODY bloody looks at it. The reworked patch has been rotting away > for almost 2 months. > > That's a huge black mark against our development process. > </david>
Not the process per se, but try doing this on Rietveld. Those are lots of changes in small files. For every single change, you need to tell the web interface to show you the file difference. You look at it, it looks ok. Now you need to navigate back to the list of changed files, remember which file you just looked at, select the next file in the list, navigate to its change overview. And so on. If you just work with the diff posted on the list, you can read and review the whole kaboodle in one session/bunch. Rietveld is nice for changes confined to one file. The more files you want to review in one patch set, the worse you have to click forth and back while remembering where you are in sequence. After your above, quite justified tirade, I went to that changeset with the intent to review it. After clicking around for a while, I ran out of motivation. This is the sort of change you want to review and comment on in one piece. Linearly. Without being forced to do hundreds of mouse clicks. The scroll wheel should be all you need unless you want to comment. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
