This is, of course, the whole point of code review and the point of the
Your change is a welcome one and we want it in, but there are things about
it that I'm not comfortable with yet. I proposed another potential solution
based on other work we've done that should both simplify the code and make
it more readable and reliable. This is how a lot of open source projects
work, with the contributor going through several revisions of the code until
it meets the coding styles and fixes the bugs that the maintainers notice.
The review submission issue you hit is due to the nature of SVN diffs. It's
something we cannot work around without someone using post-review (which you
could certainly use). You're right in that we should have a guide up
somewhere that says exactly how to contribute in order to simplify this
I understand your point of view about wanting the just provide something
that kinda works that we can use as a basis. We are, however, really busy.
It's basically two of us doing the core development and maintenance of the
project, and we do this in our spare time between our busy personal lives
and our full-time jobs. So we don't necessarily have a lot of time to fix up
everyone's patches. This is why we enforce a strict code review standard, so
that contributors both learn the general coding style and design
philosophies and we have a good record of all final patches that we can
This is not unusual in open source projects. It's just more formalized in
ours. As it should be, because we're trying to set an example in this
I hope this is not a common frustration. To date, we've had over 80
contributors to the project and I've only heard two who were upset with the
process. It's a process that has so far served us very well so we'll be
continuing with it.
Thanks for the patch. Maybe someone else will have time to take up the work
and finish it so we can get it in to the codebase.
Christian Hammond - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Maximillian Dornseif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Christian,
> first of: I'm thankful for you to publish and maintain rewiewboard.
> I'm also aware that I might have chosen the wrong channel to submit my
> bug report. Finally I also see that you want to spread the practice of
> code reviews.
> Still my experience with the bug reporting process in quite
> I found mysterious behavior in post-review and while researching it I
> found one way to fix that. Since I want to give back to the community
> and didn't like to maintain a separate version of submit-review I
> reposted the bug and also send with it a trivial patch to illustrate
> the issue.
> Probably I erred when also trying to add the patch to the reviewboard
> instance at http://reviews.review-board.org/ .
> The reviewboard submission did't work as expected. You had to explain
> to me how to do it, I had to read that, understand it, redo it.
> Now I'm expected to rework the thing to conform the reviewboard coding
> standards and make the parser better.
> To be frank: I think this is all far to much process. post-review had
> strange behavior, I investigated the issue, found a bug, changed the
> code to improve the situation and tried to provide a bug report with
> an illustrative patch.
> I think that can be considered good open source citizenship.
> What I don't want is to dive into the reviewboard codebase. I don't
> want to write reviewboard coding standards (or PEP 8 or PEP 257)
> compliant code at this point, i just want to illustrate an bug.
> I expected the maintainers to take the trivial patch and use this as a
> pointer where and how to fix their code according to their stylistic
> preferences. I was not expecting to be expected to sort imports and
> the like.
> For me this whole bug is a very frustrating experience. Probably it is
> all my error by submitting via reviewboard instead via the bugtracker.
> But I wanted to communicate my experience to you - perhaps you might
> want the clarify bug submission on the website as a method fto foster
> qualified bug reports and keep frustration in the community low.
> I have discarded http://reviews.review-board.org//r/624 because it
> served it's purpose: making authores aware of an bug in their code and
> a possible fix.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at