incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Date Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:51:36 GMT
You don't need a mutex.  This is a social problem, and
the ASF is more like Jakarta than it is Japan.  People
who want to avoid a thundering herd will pace themselves
according to the usual timing of things, and allow others
the opportunity to commit patches before checking the
commit list and log history of the files in question to
see if someone else beat them to it.



----- Original Message ----
> From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, June 24, 2011 2:47:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
> 
> OK.  I just looked up JFDI.  ;-)
> 
> Let me explain why I brought  this up. In this particular case, yes,
> JDFI.  No big deal.  But if  it were a more complicated patch, one that
> took a more substantial amount of  time to review, build and test, say
> 30 minutes, then it would be really  annoying to have 4 committers
> undertake that work independently, and have  three of them find out
> that they had wasted their time.
> 
> Does  Subversion have a feature to deal with that?  It seems to me that
> the  thing that you need to put the mutex on is the patch, not  the
> repository.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Rob Weir  <apache@robweir.com> wrote:
> > How?   By locking the files that are being patched while doing the
> > review?   Would that have really told the 2nd reviewer anything?
> > Locking only  prevents me from committing by working copy.  It doesn't
> > prevent me from  applying a patch to my working copy, right?
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >  On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>  
>wrote:
> >> Better to let subversion resolve coordination problems than  to put up 
>obstructions to jfdi, IMO.
> >>
> >> Sent from my  iPhone
> >>
> >> On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Good job, both.
> >>
> >> My little  mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me
> >> apply  the patch.  Then I figured it out.  The patch had already been
> >>  applied. ;-)
> >>
> >> Perhaps a convention in the future would be  that the committer who
> >> wants to review and merge a patch first  "claims" the patch on the
> >> list, by responding to the [PATCH] note,  saying "I have this one" or
> >> something  equivalent.
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 24,  2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp <th.groskamp@quicknet.nl>
 
>wrote:
> >> Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo)  schreef:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the fix. :-)
> >>
> >>  As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the  text
> >> directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you  in the 
>commit
> >> message.
> >>
> >>  Marcus
> >>
> >> No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was  playing with SVN.
> >> (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I  presume  ;-) )
> >>
> >> --
> >>  DiGro
> >>
> >> Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
> >> Scanned with  Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging  (F-Secure)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message