incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Date Sat, 25 Jun 2011 04:42:17 GMT
Larger patches typically have some level of review, and during that
conversation you will generally see somebody take interest in the
patch. As Joe said, it is a social convention that generally works
itself out without a person needing to "claim" a patch.

And if four days go by, and nobody has dealt with the patch? Then jump on it :-)

In the Apache Subversion community, we have a volunteer called the
"Patch Manager". That person watches the list for patches, and if
action is not taken on it after a week or two, they ping the list to
remind people of the patch. After another couple weeks, the PM will
open an issue and attach the patch. This is very helpful when a lot of
patches are flowing by on the list.

My general opinion is that if you have a lot of [PATCH] emails to the
list, then you probably need to step up the invitations for commit


On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 14:47, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <>
>>> 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 3.3
>>> Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)

View raw message