cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <>
Subject Re: Can we talk about large features before they arrive in master?
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:24:09 GMT
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Grieve <> wrote:
> One tough thing about this is knowing when you have agreement or not. E.g.
> for adding File.slice(), Braden sent out an email on the 7th saying that
> he'd like to add it for iOS & Android. Simon gave it a +1, and no one else
> responded. He then implemented the feature in a feature branch and then
> merged it when it was working. Since there was an email with few replies, I
> gathered that it had been discussed, and that no one really had anything to
> say about it.
> Joe - How do you propose that we make sure that things work? Or are you
> suggesting that a code-review serves this purpose?

I do think a code review serves this purpose.  I need to see a
published branch somewhere that I can test to make sure that things
don't break on my end before I can say "Hey, this looks good!", and
I'd prefer if mobile-spec was updated as part of the feature so I
don't have to figure out what's being done myself.

> As for code reviews:
> I'd certainly be interested in more code-reviews. I think it's really
> useful to get feedback on changes. The only time when it becomes a burden
> is when turn-around time gets too long (e.g. you submit for review and no
> one looks at it for over a day).
> Up until now, we've been using the github pull-request interface to have
> others review our changes, but this isn't done very frequently. I also
> don't love this approach because comments through it don't get posted back
> to the cordova mailing-list.

I'm not super thrilled by this either, because our GitHub pull request
system is completely broken since we can't actually close requests and
indicate when we think things are a good idea or not. I think we
should do what Android does with Gerrit (see , but that'll involve
additional infrastructure and another war with INFRA about whether
it's the Apache way or whatever.

> Another example is just using feature branches:
> Last week I tried out the branch approach for the CB-2227. I sent an email
> saying what I wanted to do, created a branch, and sent my first "I've made
> progress" out on Wednesday. On Thursday, I responded to the thread saying
> that the initial work was done and asked for feedback. I got no feedback,
> so today I merged into Master and updated the bug. I did this because I
> feel pretty confident about the change, but also because it will force
> everyone to test it out, and we're still early in the current release-cycle.

I think this is fine and is exactly what needs to happen. It didn't
seem to break anything ,and there was a branch that we could look at.
The thing is that I don't remember seeing a branch for ArrayBuffer
that we could look at.  I'll dig through my e-mail to find it, but I
don't remember seeing it.

> Maybe there's a problem with people not noticing when feedback is being
> requested? Should we have a more structured way of asking for feedback on a
> branch? E.g. Start a new thread on the ML with the subject "Review Request:
> ..." or something like that? And if you're proposing a new API, say "API
> Review: ...". WDYT?

I think that having a proper header on the e-mail would be a good plan.

View raw message