On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Geoffrey Garen <gga...@apple.com> wrote: >>> 2) Your patch can be vetted by the various bots that analyze patches >>> posted for review. >> >> True, if what you're really asking for is not just a bug report but also a >> "cooling off period" during which >> you wait for a result from the EWS bot, even if you get a review right away. >> You get greater value in the >> case of a bad patch, but also greater cost in the case of every patch. > > Yes, this way of doing things has more overhead for you personally but > saves overhead for everyone else in the project. The question, as I > see it, is which of these quantities is larger. The more people that > work on the project, the bigger the multiplier on the right.
I'm not sure this is totally correct. I'm sure more people than ggaren find the TPS cover sheet / cooling off period to be an added cost. These added costs apply to *all* developers, whether they land bad patches or not. You seem to be advocating a system that imposes a (perhaps small) cost on every development 'transaction' as insurance against the (possibly high) cost of a build breakage. I'm not sure the cost/benefit is clear here. >>> When you go cowboy and commit without >>> building and testing, you impose costs on everyone else in the >>> project. >> >> Probably not fair to conflate shooting a six-shooter with committing without >> filling out a bugzilla form first. To be fair, committing without at least building seems like a very unfriendly thing to do. :-) -Brent _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev