>>>>> "Rich" == Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> writes:
Rich> I still think it'd be a very good idea for us to go through the Rich> code we have doing the same code review we expect others to do. I Rich> think actual review will be far easier if we've done a second pass Rich> and dealt with anything that really stands out. We talked about this at the meeting today and agreed it would be useful. Cadmium still has several significant outstanding issues, so let's ignore it for this discussion. One of the things we discussed in the meeting was how to ensure forward progress. I was concerned that we would get stuck in a loop of making code changes and doing an internal review, and never progress to the external review. Jim C. suggested raising the bar for changes after the internal code review, such as requiring two reviews for future changes. That makes sense to me. With that in mind, I'd like for us to deal with Bill Sommerfeld's review comments and any other stoppers prior to the internal review. That would be 265 P3 scm-migration-dev at opensolar... SGS commands use sccs SID in version... 370 P3 scm-migration-dev at opensolar... RTI checks should tell me I can't co... 425 P3 scm-migration-dev at opensolar... put back #ident lines for things tha... 427 P3 scm-migration-dev at opensolar... tools should check for acceptable ve... 440 P3 scm-migration-dev at opensolar... Need exactly one implementation of s... 441 P3 scm-migration-dev at opensolar... tools/Makefile.tools INS.pyfile shou... 442 P3 richlowe at richlowe.net ws should stop talking about 5.0, ch... I'd also like to see the gpyfm issues resolved prior to the internal review. We've been talking about ditching gpyfm and replacing it with something else. That something else should be in place. mike
