geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject Re: Closing items 49-56,58-65 as duplicate
Date Wed, 03 Sep 2003 13:33:47 GMT
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 18:07 Europe/London, Kevin Pearcey wrote:

>> Please let's try to remember that the people we're
>> dealing with here are intelligent adults.  Mocking and
>> exaggeration are probably unlikely to change anyone's mind.
>> No one is saying that every developer must submit precisely one
>> patch per day, regardless of the code in question.  However,
>> it struck me
>> as unreasonable that 15+ patches were submitted in the space of a few
>> minutes, all for the same area of the code, when only one person was
>> working on that area of the code, and all the patches would likely be
>> handled by the same committer.
> So perhaps we should break some of Alex's fingers and slow him down. 
> Are you
> seriously suggesting that you have a problem dealing with someone 
> breaking
> down their work in to distinct pieces to they have better control and
> tracking of it?  I suspect this will just force Alex to upload his 
> patches
> in a more spread out pattern, thus slowing the general development of 
> that
> area.

No need to break fingers; breaking the enthusiasm is just as effective 

As it happens, I'm now not bothering to upload patches frequently since 
it takes sufficiently long to get them committed to the repo that if I 
wait for the patch to be committed before starting work again I end up 
at a very slow speed. One of the suggestions made earlier was that the 
JavaMail is forked out to a new project (say, at sourceforge) as the 
only practical current solution to this problem.

>> And remember, this is all on the same area of the code, which
>> is otherwise untouched.  None of this is to say "impossible",
>> but developers, as we all know, are lazy.
> It seems from this that it's the committers that are lazy. I don't see 
> how
> Alex taking the time sorting out each distinct change is lazier that a
> simple big patch.

It was actually sufficiently more work for me to apply bugs/patches in 
a modular fashion. It was much easier to generate 'here's what I've 
done over the week' patch for the UberBug. But that's going to be one 
ugly CVS commit ...


View raw message