Hi, > So just to let you know what is going on, when the bugfix has been > applied to a local workspace, we generate a "webrev" which shows the > revisions between the old and new files (a kind of diff, but with a > lot more ways to view the changes). This then gets sent to two or > more reviewers, even for trivial bugs like this one. Sometimes these > reviews can sit in a queue for a bit, if the reviewers are hurting > for time. > > After both reviewers give it the ok, I can put the bug back. It will > then take several weeks before the swing workspace is integrated back > into the main workspace, goes through testing, and pops out in a build.
Eh. You really want to scare off voluntary contributors, would you? I mean, requiring this procedure from paid developers is one thing, but voluntary developers often do develop for fun (or some other kind of - let's call it 'social reward' -). And a procedure like this really useful for bringing motivation down to zero. I mean, this patch is perfect, it's obvious, it even comes with a testcase. And I really really doubt that such a procedure adds much to the overall quality of the code. Or how would you explain, for example, the crazy code in UIManager.initialize() ;-) (I've seen a couple of places in OpenJDK, where a non-visible method of another package is called via reflection. This is not only evil, it's dangerous too. What if such a method is renamed or removed? And after all, it's not even necessary to write such code in the first place. A little refactoring of things should help too). Just my 2 cents. /Roman -- http://kennke.org/blog/
