geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: Closing items 49-56,58-65 as duplicate
Date Mon, 01 Sep 2003 20:50:39 GMT
	Please let's try to remember that the people we're dealing with
here are intelligent adults.  Mocking and exaggeration are probably
unlikly 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.

	Compare one big patch to 15 little patches.  It's harder to sort
through all the little patches and determine how they relate.  It's harder
to apply them in the correct order.  It's harder to make sure they all get
applied.  It's harder to figure out which ones obsolete which other ones.  
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.

	Now, the author has pointed out that some of the files were new,
and cannot easily be incorporated into a patch file.  As well, the author
needed to select several specific changes to submit, while leaving
numerous others alone.  I don't think these are incompatible with sending
one big patch -- cvs diff takes a list of file names or directories to
operate on, and new files can be zipped separately, resulting in one patch
file and one zip file.  This makes it instantly clear what is supposed to
be applied together.

	It is trickier to apply patches to patches or patches that
obsolete patches in this scheme, but since non-committers can't close
obsolete JIRA issues anyway, it seems easier to be to update one issue
with a newer (patch file, zip file) pair than to try to manage lots
individual issues and expect the ultimate committer to keep the proper
combination straight.

	But that's just MHO.


On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Kevin Pearcey wrote:
> So can I just check that the policy is to provide one and ONLY one patch
> a day per developer against Geronimo with any and all changes so that we
> can accurately track changes on a day by day basis rather than holding
> any detail about what the changes were?
> ...
> In my opinion this is about as sensible as a one word cvs commit log of
> - changes.

View raw message