On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Brent Fulgham <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Geoffrey Garen <[email protected]> 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.
For fun, I scrolled back through WebCore/ChangeLog looking for a non-build fix that was missing a bug link. The first one I found was 160 revs ago. I suspect the vast majority of patches already have bug reports. > 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. We require a ChangeLog for every patch. Isn't that a TPS report? Another perspective is that we have lots of tools to help you not break the build. If you bypass those tools and break the build, you're going to piss people off. Please be kind, rewind. (Well, or switch to watching movies on DVD.) Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
