Hi, On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> So, you're telling us, that because someone might not remember (or > understand) an obvious removal, any packager needs to comment in future > any removal, even the obvious ones? Come on... When it's obvious it needs no comment (just that, as already said here, obviousness is a difficult measure). > So, is this rule introduction "any removal needs a mandatory comment in > future" an advantage or a hindrance? It would be a hindrance, because it's too absolute. I'm not in favor of such rule. > I think every packager should still be able to decide on his own if it > is necessary to have a comment for an "rm" or not. I think it wouldn't hurt to have reviewers (the checkin team) also being able to demand comments. They would apply common sense, and be done with it. > Programing obvious things without a need to comment is sometimes an > advantage. > > There should be no such automatic testing. I agree, there should neither be atomatic metric measurement, or even hard policies for comments. Humans need to look over it and decide if it's "not enough" or "enough" comments, mostly from the guts based on experience. Everything else will only cause uproar, and useless comments being written for the sake of fulfilling the policy. Ciao, Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
