Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Also, given that there were problems with his original commit, then
> why shouldn't he go ahead and try to fix them in real time? It isn't
> like his commits will break things further, no?
That's interesting. I was trying to convey the opposite view: since the
original commit was made within minutes of first posting about the problem,
before any response, and turned out to be wrong (to be blunt), I would prefer
to see caution rather haste in fixing the fix. It gets messy if a single
logical fix ends up being implemented by a chain of commits each correcting the
previous one.
> I don't think it would be advisable to get into a mode of "every
> change must be posted for review first." It *really* slows down a
> project. Not saying you're recommending that, but that is how I read
> this request.
I'd say a change that the committer feels is safe need not be reviewed first;
but when a problem that was initially thought to be simple and obvious is shown
to be not so, that is the time to slow down and take more care.
Just my opinion.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 7 03:05:14 2005