On ... wrote:
>...
> Was there any discussion about this overcommit behaviour?
This is the second or third time that I've seen "was there any
discussion" raised as a point. This raises a small yellow flag for me.
We all make changes to the codebase, and many of them are *NOT*
discussed before hand. We simply do what we think is best for
Subversion. But raising the spectre of "did you talk to 'us' before
doing this" seems to intrude on the rights/responsibilities that we
have as committers. It seems to be erecting a gate.
Subversion has always been commit-then-review (CTR). Changes are made
by the developers, and then subject to review by the other devs and
interested watchers. The only real time that we have requested review
*before* commits is for large new features (e.g. patch, obliterate,
etc). But even then, a lot of work is typically done to "hide" the
work until it matures. We've sometimes used branches to await maturity
(but IMO, that usually fails because people tend to NOT review branch
work).
Of course, it is completely legit to ask "is there prior
research/discussion/input that went into this feature that you can
point me to [so I can educate myself]", but I'm a bit wary of
situations where it seems to be implying that a change should not have
been made because there was no discussion.
We make changes. We break the code. We make it worse. We fix it, and move on.
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2011-03-09 16:59:13 CET