> From: Files [mailto:files@poetryunlimited.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:07 PM
> I take it back.
>
> This log message is the *same* set of changes that everyone got up in
> arms about previously when I didn't itemize all the changes.
You mean to say that there is no option in between? Like summarize the
changes perhaps? Are you paying attention to how other committers do
it?
> Now that I have and tried to give a *brief* overview of what the changes
> encompass, it is now too long.
One example:
* fop-file
(added): This shell script looks for the presence of a fop tarball
in the current directory.
* fop-gz
(added): This shell script looks for the presence of a gzipped tarball
for fop in the current directory.
* fop-bz2
(added): This shell script looks for the presence of a bzipped tarball
for fop in the current directory.
* fop-installed
(added): This shell script detects the presence of fop being already
installed.
Could be written as:
* fop-file
* fop-gz
* fop-bz2
* fop-installed
New scripts to indentify presence of FOP.
> Where as my previous explanation that said everything was in flux and
> the documentation was about to change to identify everything, was
> insufficient.
>
> Demarcate the line in the sand if you please. And then cement it.
>
> I can't keep remodifying my protocol to fit the current interpretation
> of the policy on a given day.
>
> I read what it said in HACKING. I did what it said. Each time. And I got
> two very different results. Maybe that should be indicative of an issue
> in and of itself?
It might mean we lowered the bar for commit access too much. All
previously added committers submitted patches first and were then,
when we were comfortable with the quality, granted commit access.
You are the only exception to that rule AFAIK.
> Where did I err? And what parts should be removed.
"Please write my log message" ?
> I will only edit it one more time.
And if it doesn't conform to how we do things, then what?
> And I will follow that protocol to the letter from here on out, since
> obviously HACKING isn't clear enough to be interpreted the same way each
> time.
We have documentation in HACKING. We have examples, 7000+ of them,
by running svn log on the repository. If you follow the commit message
list, which you should as a committer, you'll see examples going by on an
almost daily basis.
> I'm tired of wasting my time trying to *fit* a hole that keeps changing
> shape.
Ahum, now who is wasting who's time exactly?
The hole is exactly the same size and shape as it has been for months.
Or should I say years?
> So long and thanks for all the fish.
>
> *grumble grumble never happy grumble grumble*
Untrue. Ask the other committers. Critical? Yes. Unsatisfyable? No.
Also note that for new committers we pay extra attention, since we want
to monitor the quality. You are bound to see more nit-picky feedback
to a new committer's first few commits than with later work.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Sep 28 22:34:37 2003