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

Re: Jens, please try to get more peer review

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 23:53:06 -0400

"Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>> From: Daniel Shahaf
>> Maybe "Approved by: obvious fix".
> That may confuse the contribulyzer. I think just prefacing the log
> message with "Obvious fix", much the same way people sometimes do with
> work on branches, would be fine. I really don't care how it's done,
> but being explicit about the obvious fix rule being invoked would be a
> good thing.

The Contribulyzer won't get confused -- it doesn't search for ".* by:",
but rather for certain specific words followed by " by:". So we'll be
fine on that front either way.

I think just including the string "obvious fix" or "obvious fix rule"
somewhere in the log message will be enough to indicate when the rule is
being invoked. We don't need a parseable convention for it.

While I know Stefan's original mail was well-meant, remember that part
of the point of the "obvious fix rule" is to remove barries to getting
obvious problems fixed. Waiting for approval from someone else is a
barrier -- a small one, often a reasonable one, but a barrier
nonetheless. So while it's always fine to seek review on a change, a
commit under the "obvious fix rule" shouldn't also need pre-approval.
Otherwise, why have an "obvious fix rule"?

If on rare occasions we get a failing test because the test output
wasn't updated, that's an annoyance, but IMHO it's an acceptable price
to pay for lots of obvious fixes going in with a minimum of overhead.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-01 05:53:24 CEST

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.