incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachm...@trialox.org>
Subject Re: Reopening and redefining of CLEREZZA-531
Date Thu, 19 May 2011 15:25:13 GMT
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> That may be but the title is a complete misnomer. What you really were
> doing was changing WebProxy. If the naming had been the only issue
> then you could have just changed the name in the other code.
>
> You could also have openened an issue for your new WebProxy and then
> added that on one commit.
>
> Then there could have been an issue to move from one to the other.

Exactly, that's what I proposed in a comment to CLEREZZA-463
>
> That is just what  your recent guidance on only doing small precise changes
> would ammount to.
right.
>
> But frankly I think we can be a bit more flexible here.  The point is to
> get moving and not waste time in procedures. So the best is just to change
> the name of the issue, to make it do what your fix did.
in the recent past I spent a lot of time because of lack of adherence
to the procedure, seeing changes in the code, wondering what issue
they come from asking on the list. As well as dealing with code in
trunk which was obviously never reviewed (code conventions, wrong
comments and other things that probably wouldn't have passed even a
superficial review).

[...]
> I don't have time for this nonsense. I don't think you are paying me
> to work on this, are you?
I do very much appreciate your contributions, but if the policy would
be "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" apache code would certainly
not be as good as it is.

> And I think I remember you renaming a few issues
> before hand yourself.
+1
It is true that most of what I criticize about others can be
criticized very often about me. So lets constructively criticize  both
way and constantly improve code and process.

Reto

Mime
View raw message