Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Gav...." <brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au>
To: <dev@forrest.apache.org>
Subject: Commit then review revisited.
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 07:16:48 +0800
Message-ID: <008001c7a890$c2773de0$650fa8c0@developer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
thread-index: AceokME8elg8TlyFSQypcrqboddNrw==

In the FOAF thread Ross says :-

"... (and to be fair Gav made a mistake in committing it without reviewing
it properly - that's our job as committers)...."

First , I apologise for not having the time yesterday to review it properly
before committing. (Wrists still sore from the slapping :) ) 
However, a conversation while back stuck in my mind [1] and so I adopted the
approach of 'commit then review' - as long as it is sure not to break
something else.

The patch I applied yesterday was actually the first patch file that I had
successfully managed to unpatch back into code (?)  -- I finally got
patch.exe installed into Cygwin and used Davids command line code [2] of '
patch -p0 < ~/pathToFile/filename.patch '. In fact I copied the patch file
to 'trunk' first and just did 'patch -p0 filename.patch' and was pleased to
see that it all expanded into the correct place in whiteboard -- so I now
see properly the reasons for correctly creating patches relative from trunk
root.

Anyway, just wanted to nip this in the bud now, should I from now on revert
my thinking and review the patches before committing, even though this will
mean the patch just waits there a little longer ?

Thanks

Gav...


[1] - http://marc.info/?l=forrest-dev&m=114579093419890&w=2
[2] - http://marc.info/?l=forrest-dev&m=115931572618302&w=2