Maybe the key is to enforce a standard process for reviewing, validating
and integrating patches (if such does not allready exist).
Perhaps all patches should be forwarded to one developer who integrates
the patches into a sandbox installation? For anyone who hasn't used
them, I can reccomend JCSC (http://sourceforge.net/projects/jcsc/) or
Checkstyle (http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/). Running one of against
the new code base, then running all functional tests in Ant should
address the problem of poor coding standards, naming conventions etc
etc. This should help with the legibility of the code, making it easier
to read and understand.
I'm not sure what can be done with regards to architectural consistency.
A review by a developer who is fimiliar with the architecture, and the
direction that
it needs to go in the future? The result of that is a tradeoff however;
enforcing the integrity may mean refactoring some of the patches
submitted and this both generates more work for the devloper and makes
the original patch pointless.
Regards,
Richard
Glen Daniels wrote:
>Hm. Maybe we should be a little more careful about committing these things.
>Actually, I've been thinking about that for a while now, not just in terms
>of lexical/style stuff, but in terms of architectural consistency. Our
>source has a bunch of "band aid" fixes at this point which add up in terms
>of making the system as a whole harder to comprehend and maintain....
>
>I'm not sure what the right solution to this is, 'cause we certainly want to
>encourage patches!
>
>--Glen
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Davanum Srinivas" <dims@yahoo.com>
>To: <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 9:16 AM
>Subject: Re: Tabs
>
>
>
>
>>i think so :)
>>
>>--- Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How the heck did we get so many tabs in our source?
>>>
>>>Patches?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Tom Jordahl
>>>Macromedia Server Development
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>=====
>>Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|