cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gerhard Froehlich" <gerhard_froehl...@at.ibm.com>
Subject Re: [docs] opensource and quality control
Date Wed, 15 May 2002 14:27:40 GMT
Hi,

>>On Wednesday 15 May 2002 12:00, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> >I think that we already have this. It is the duty of the
>> >committer to undertake initial quality control when they
>> >accept the patch from Bugzilla and prepare for their
>> >commit. If they do not know anything about the topic, then
>> >they should not be taking on the patch - let someone else
>> >do it.
>>
>> Who is someone else? Patches in bugzilla are very lonely in
>> the moment. There are simply not applied. Why? Because there
>> about 600 classes in Cocoon, about 10 active committers and
>> nobody feels responsible. It's easy to say, oh I didn't
>> wrote this code, therefor I can't apply this patch. But
>> patches like NPE fixes, can be applied by every committer, I
>> swear!
>
>Well, I guess every committer feels responsible for what he is committing.
>Although this is good this is also the problem. Who can say he is fully
aware
>if the patch does not break anything else... If it's your code - well,
then
>you do know better what he is doing and if it still breaks something -
well,
>you are the one in charge... That's different when you apply a patch from
>someone else...

Yes we're responsible but not failure free, or? Ok you applied a broken
patch. Now it's your reponsibility to fix it with the contributor, when
you have the time. Nobody says you have to do it ASAP (but it should
compile
at least!).

Simply "own" the bug in bugzilla and "assign" it to your email address.
I did 4 times last weeks. Now I'm responsible for 2 bugs (they are more
additions).

Don't think in ways like "I'm in charge". Nobody can hurt you seriously,
here ;-).

>I guess bugfixes are not the problem but larger rewrites and additions...

Agree ... but they must get re-viewed and applied somehow.
If not, Cocoon will stand still and the community breaks.

>Simple "improvements" can easily break other stuff (as e.g. on of the last
>esql improvements that took me a couple of hours to fix. No accusation but
a
>fact. And you we are all short in time...)
>
>Maybe we try too hard to keep HEAD stable?

That's the point. But nobody stated this, or? IMO the HEAD branch can and
must
be unstable in the moment.

IMAO people have a to great respect for the codebase.

>...but I like a quite stable HEAD so it's easier to type "cvs update"
without
>the fear of breaking your current system ;-)
>
>So what to do, what to do... ?

Doing it!

Greets
Gerhard

------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Fröhlich
IBM Account Austria - 00/627
BIS e-business integration services
IBM Austria / Vienna
A-1020 Vienna, Obere Donaustrasse 95
Tel: ++43 1 21145 4818
Fax: ++43 1 21145 4191
e-mail: gerhard_froehlich@at.ibm.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message