Mark Grosberg <mark@nolab.conman.org> writes:
> Anybody have a chance to look over my latest patch? Haven't heard anything
> back for several days.
Sorry for the delay Mark -- I think everyone's just been busy.
There's an unfortunate pattern here, one familiar to longtime list
watchers :-). A patch comes in, but has some obvious and easily
correctable problems, such as incomplete doc strings, wrong naming
conventions, log message, whatever. So it gets feedback right away,
because the feedback is so easy to give.
After a few cycles of this, there is nothing obviously wrong with the
patch. It just needs a detailed review & test, followed (we hope) by
application. That's all much more time-consuming than the earlier
feedback, so it's a while before someone gets time to do it.
This pattern is exacerbated when the patch is for a feature that
doesn't block 1.0. It's much lower on everyone's priority list then
(which is not to disprize the effort you obviously put into it, but
the review/apply part of the cycle is about someone else's time...)
Regarding issue #1295 specifically, I just noticed now that the issue
is marked "Resolved->Invalid" by Mark Benedetto King, saying:
> This was discussed earlier on the dev mailing list. The decision
> was that "svn st > foo; $EDITOR foo; svn commit --targets foo"
> was just as good, and less likely to cause problems for CVS
> users.
>
> I'm marking the issue invalid; if for some reason the command
> sequence above doesn't meet your requirements, please re-open it.
I don't have any memory of this consensus; maybe MBK can say more?
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 13 17:30:19 2003