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

Re: javahl situation

From: Patrick Mayweg <mayweg_at_qint.de>
Date: 2004-01-14 13:41:00 CET

Hi Karl,
kfogel@collab.net wrote:

>I suggested once before a looser approval process for the bindings,
>since there were a) fewer committers competent to review, and b) the
>bindings aren't part of the core software.
>We didn't really get a consensus on that proposal, and we seem to be
>doing okay with using the three +1's system for Perl bindings at least
>-- there are enough people competent to review them.
>But for the javahl bindings, we are having a real problem getting
>enough votes. Partially, this might be because Patrick Mayweg doesn't
>know he can vote on them (otherwise, I assume he would have voted on
>them already.) Confidential to Patrick: they're in your domain, so
>you can vote on them, see the top section in STATUS for details :-).
I did not know that. I will do that,

>But even if Patrick +1's everything, many changes will still be short
>of three votes.
>This is getting ridiculous. We should *not* hold up the javahl
>bindings just because there are only a few experts. There's a reason
>we have partial committers maintaining those areas in the first place:
>we recognized that we should open the doors a bit wider for non-core
>bindings surfaces that didn't pose much risk to Subversion itself. We
>should be applying that same philosophy to getting them into 1.0, else
>why did we have the looser commit policy in the first place?
The problem right now is the javahl in svn 0.36.0 does not compile. I am
working on that right now.

>I'd wanted to review/vote on these changes myself. All the ones I've
>checked so far look good. Unfortunately, I don't have the environment
>or expertise to do a truly thorough review & testing. Now, I could
>just vote "+1" in the faith that someone else has done their homework
>(and I will, if we can't solve this any other way), but that would be
>a travesty of the review process. It'd be much better to simply admit
>that we need to treat non-core areas differently.
>Here's my specific proposal:
>A bindings change can go in with a +1 from either a bindings
>maintainer for that area or a full committer, and at least one "+0" or
>"+1 (concept)" from any other committer.
>The goal of this system is to make sure there's at least two pairs of
>eyes on the change, but not to demand that every reviewer have the
>same amount of expertise that the bindings maintainer does. One can
>review for general sanity, accurate comments, obvious mistakes, etc,
>without being forced to assert "Yes, I understand these changes in
>every detail and have tested them."
>If people prefer, we can apply this system to just the javahl bindings
>for now, but I think it would be more comprehensible if applied to all
>the bindings. And after all, nothing is stopping someone from
>reviewing a change if they want to, no matter how many votes it
>already has.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 14 13:39:37 2004

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.