[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn_auth.h API change

From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com>
Date: 2003-12-29 19:40:48 CET

--On Monday, December 29, 2003 10:58 AM -0600 kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Huh? That question seems like a bit of a non sequitur. Just because
> something can't be tested automatically doesn't mean it isn't a bug.
> Isn't that exactly why human review is part of the process?

Humans are going to miss things, yet that's why we require 3 of them to merge.
We're not perfect, and we're just starting our review process, so it's a
little unclear what your conditions for +1ing a patch are.

I think it would be extremely helpful if you specifically outline in STATUS
what additional tools and processes you (as project lead) expect must also be
satisfied in any +1. Let me reiterate: neither documentation nor this
tools/examples/ directory can be built via 'make.' So, I'm not sure how I was
reasonably supposed to detect this. And, as I said, I'm not predisposed to
checking the doc strings manually - I care more about the correctness of code.

> standards as well as anyone. A missing parameter is a correctness
> issue in this project, and under other circumstances you'd be the
> first to agree.

Of course, I agree. But, I just ran "doxygen doc/doxygen.conf" right now and
I get a lot of missing argument and documentation warnings (at least 95). So,
even if I had run doxygen to check, it probably would have been lost in the

(Note: doxygen just SEGVd on me partway through, so it didn't even finish.)

> But my mail wasn't mainly about spurring you to take these specific
> actions. I'm really asking you (and all of us) to be careful with
> future reviews, that's all. If someone votes +1 on a patch that turns
> out to have an unambiguous problem, then they should be made aware of
> that, and I intend to do so whenever it happens, including to myself.

Yes, I noticed the thread. And, it was fixed promptly by others. What else
would you have liked me to do? As I see it, the review process worked
perfectly. Instead of criticizing those who overlooked the (minor) problem, I
think it'd be better to understand why they overlooked it so this same thing
doesn't occur in the future. -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 29 19:42:19 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.