db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Laura Stewart" <scotsmat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How to commit documentation patches?
Date Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:32:28 GMT
On 8/14/06, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
(begin snip)
> Now it seems there are three possible choices for a committer:
>
>  A) commit the patch without any further review
>      + gets the patch submitted the quickest
>      + allows more eyes on the change early
>      - chance for wrong information applied to docs
>
>  B) reviewer the patch themselves and then commit
>      + almost as good as 1) on the time frame
>      - extra time committment by a committer
>      +/- less chance for wrong information (depends on if committer
> knows the area)
>
>  C) wait for an additional review (by anyone) [Jean's approach]
>      + least chance for wrong information (but still a chance)
>      - longer timeframe before committing
>          * initial reviewer may not have time to review the revised patch
>          * other reviewers may not appear
>
(end snip)

As a person interested in the documentation, this problem is a concern to me.
Ideally I prefer C because it assures me that another review will
validate the changes.  More importantly, sometimes I have questions
about a change or reasons why I wordsmithed a proposed change and I
would prefer another person validate that my wordsmithing doesn't
change the meaning of the content... inotherwords does not make the
docs technically inaccurate.

However there are times when a small or simple change could be
committed immediately.

One possible option is to flag the issue to indicate that it is minor
or significant and let that flag dictate the approach taken  by
committers...
-- 
Laura Stewart

Mime
View raw message