RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 7.0 RC4 Candidate Available

["Schorn, Markus" <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I expect that I would have problems finding a reviewer for every
non trivial patch. Nevertheless I find it important to enable the 
review by attaching a patch to a bug. 

At the same time I do support a policy that requires a review for every 
checkin late in the release cycle (RC1, ...).

Markus.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Blackburn
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 9:26 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT 7.0 RC4 Candidate Available
> Importance: Low
> 
> On 4 June 2010 20:00, John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We probably should at all stages, IMO. Quality over quantity.
> 
> I completely agree. The only way to get us out of the build 
> mess is to not allow large chunks of undocumented, untested 
> code to be committed.
> The problem we have in these areas is the mountain of 
> historical cruft that no one understands and I bet no one ever will.
> 
> I'm all for having a policy that any non-trivial change 
> should be approved by (at least) one other reviewer. It's a 
> great mechanism to ensure that committers think about the 
> change they're committing. And submitting patches to bugzilla 
> already increases exposure making the committer think twice.
> 
> Should we have a formal policy on this? Does anyone disagree with it?
> 
> John's right, we need to aim for APIs and code quality like 
> the platform.  It's only fair on the people that will 
> eventually take over from us...
> 
> Cheers,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>