Hi Ed,
You are absolutely right about your complains. Apart from recalling my
very already-announced short availability in September-October, I can
only give apologies about this. As I said in bug 288040 I hope this
kind of situations doesn't frequently appear.
About your proposal, it's OK to me. The point now is who are the
reviewers..... As I have manifested I happy revising any issue related
to the parser/analyzer (grammars, cst, ast, parser, analyzer, library).
About 288040 and 259031. I replied with some comments on which I was
obviously expecting some feedback.
About 184048, 254919. I could revise the former. Laurent, since you
have been working on OCL test's would you mind revising the latter ?
Cheers,
Adolfo.
Ed Willink escribió:
Hi
The problem with patch application can be resolved by reviewing
promptly in reverse order.
So
The Bug 184048 patch is most recent and should still Apply against CVS
now.
Please review it.
Once that is approved and committed, I can then rework Bug 288040 and
provided it is
approved before any further commits, a further rework should be
unnecessary.
The other two patches are independent so likely to involve at most
very trivial merge
conflicts.
Regards
Ed Willink
Hi
Folks
We have a problem with our current approval process that is making it
very difficult for me to proceed.
Bug 288040 OCL 2.1 grammar precedence rule
changes
has
a patch awaiting +1 since 2-September. On 21-September, Adolfo commented
"As it has been manifested, I (we) shouldn't delay too much patches's
revision,
since we make the assignee waste time. I hope to respond earlier in
future
bugs."
Bug 184048 OCLLPGParser.g grammer incorrectly
defines 'if' _expression_
has a patch awaiting +1 since 19-September.
Bug 259031 Provide support for oclType()
operation per OMG OCL 2.1 RTF
has a patch awaiting +1 since 13-September.
Bug 254919 JUnit tests are difficult to run
has a patch awaiting +1 since 14-September
-----
Re Adolfo's comment in 288040 "Is there any chance to do the
modifications yourself, and uploading it again ?."
The answer is a very firm No. I already have to do all the work twice.
Once to develop it, and again to apply it
once approval is granted; intervening parser changes seem to trash a
lot as Adolfo has discovered. I cannot
be expected to do it again each time a reviewer has time to review. The
reviewer must review promptly or
recreate the project as at the time of submission. (Maybe we should
make three-way compare work in
the Apply Patch dialog.)
------------------------------------
Suggestion:
For each project area (parser, library, evaluator, validator, tests
etc), we designate a primary committer and a secondary
committer.
Patches are to be reviewed by at least either primary or secondary
committer (usually the other one) within 7 days,
unless an 'out-of-contact' period has been notified to mdt-ocl-dev in
which case the period extends to
7 days + 'out-of-contact' period with a maximum of 21 days. At the end
of this approval timeout, in the absence
of a constructive -1, approval is automatic. Not more than 15 days
'out-of-contact' per committer per quarter.
Regards
Ed Willink
_______________________________________________
mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
_______________________________________________
mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
--
|
Adolfo
Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera
adolfosbh(at)opencanarias(dot)com
C/Elías Ramos González, 4, ofc. 304
38001 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE
Tel.: +34 922 240231 / +34 617 718268 |
|
