Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes

["Manoj Palat" <manoj.palat@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

Thanks Sarika for bringing this point out.

A mass change which has proven benefits is always welcome and really appreciate the time and effort of people who do that.

However, JDT changes themselve are massive and frequent due to the interplay of three month release of Eclipse combined with the six month release cadence of Java - sometimes the merging efforts themselves vie for being a subproject of Eclipse :).

Given these two factors, I totally agree especially from JDT projects pov, M1 can be (and should be the only) the point in which such proven mass changes can be incorporated.

Regards,
Manoj

"Sarika Sinha" ---06/20/2019 09:58:49 AM---There are few points to be considered - 1. Problem is not with the trivial code changes, problem is

From: "Sarika Sinha" <sarika.sinha@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 06/20/2019 09:58 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

There are few points to be considered -
1. Problem is not with the trivial code changes, problem is in managing the merge conflicts either during this mass change by the contributor or by other contributors after this mass change is released. (As I have seen it happening this week where contributor is struggling to rebase the mass change gerrits)
2. This merging turns to be an evil specially for JDT repositories where new Java version work happens in a different branch (due to legal constraints). 

I am OK with the mass changes in M1 but it should be a call of the component based on the timeline and other feature development going on in parallel like JDT.

Thanks & Regards,
Sarika

"Daniel Megert" ---06/20/2019 06:01:32 AM---Thanks Mickael, that's a good approach which works fine with me. As for the review, yes a second per

From: "Daniel Megert" <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 06/20/2019 06:01 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Thanks Mickael, that's a good approach which works fine with me.

As for the review, yes a second person besides the owner must give a code-review+1 (or+2), but for mass changes with (apparently) trivial code changes I would be OK if only random samples are reviewed.

Dani



From: Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx" <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 19.06.2019 18:53
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi,

My 2c below ;)

About !longChain.isEmpty() vs longChain.size() > 0, I favor the first one because isEmpty() is theorically a O(1) operation while size() is a O(n). Of course, most of smart enough implementations have this optimized and make size() a O(1), but there is usually no guarantee it is so. So size() is more expensive that isEmpty() and should be preferred.
About readability, I understand the concern and I would like to suggest an alternative for that case: longChain.isEmpty() == false, which seems to have the qualities requested by all parties.

About requiring a review for mass changes, +1.
About not allowing mass change after some milestone, +1.

Cheers


-- 
Mickael Istria
Eclipse IDE developer, for Red Hat Developers
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc

_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc

_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc