Re: svn checkpoint: r27139 - checkpoints

"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilatocollab.net> writes:
> Exactly.  You can't see the diffs when Karl squirrels
away patches in his
> local disk, either, and that's fine.  What matters is
the change dropped
> into a live branch -- that's the diff to review.  If
Karl wants early
> feedback on his work in progress, then he needs to use
a regular feature
> branch and work within the established policies for
commits to our tree.

Things are not quite so easily defined, I think.

For example, attaching successive patches to an issue has
never part
of our process, but I've been doing it (for off-site
backups, and to
provide review opportunities to anyone intensely interested
in that
issue's progress).

90% of the time, I'm the only one watching those patches. 
But every
now and then, I do get reviews, and they're helpful (it
happened most
recently in issue #2959, with both dlr and vgeorgescu).  Did
I "want"
those reviews?  Well, I didn't expect them, but I was glad
to get
them.

So there can be fine gradations of desire/need for review. 
I think
Justin's instincts are right, that if there's going to be a
review
opportunity at all, we should at least try to make it easy.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribesubversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpsubversion.tigris.org

KARL FOGEL WROTE:
> "C. MICHAEL PILATO" <CMPILATOCOLLAB.NET> WRITES:
>> EXACTLY.  YOU CAN'T SEE THE DIFFS WHEN KARL
SQUIRRELS AWAY PATCHES IN HIS
>> LOCAL DISK, EITHER, AND THAT'S FINE.  WHAT MATTERS
IS THE CHANGE DROPPED
>> INTO A LIVE BRANCH -- THAT'S THE DIFF TO REVIEW. 
IF KARL WANTS EARLY
>> FEEDBACK ON HIS WORK IN PROGRESS, THEN HE NEEDS TO
USE A REGULAR FEATURE
>> BRANCH AND WORK WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED POLICIES FOR
COMMITS TO OUR TREE.
> 
> THINGS ARE NOT QUITE SO EASILY DEFINED, I THINK.
> 
> FOR EXAMPLE, ATTACHING SUCCESSIVE PATCHES TO AN ISSUE
HAS NEVER PART
> OF OUR PROCESS, BUT I'VE BEEN DOING IT (FOR OFF-SITE
BACKUPS, AND TO
> PROVIDE REVIEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ANYONE INTENSELY
INTERESTED IN THAT
> ISSUE'S PROGRESS).
> 
> 90% OF THE TIME, I'M THE ONLY ONE WATCHING THOSE
PATCHES.  BUT EVERY
> NOW AND THEN, I DO GET REVIEWS, AND THEY'RE HELPFUL (IT
HAPPENED MOST
> RECENTLY IN ISSUE #2959, WITH BOTH DLR AND VGEORGESCU).
 DID I "WANT"
> THOSE REVIEWS?  WELL, I DIDN'T EXPECT THEM, BUT I WAS
GLAD TO GET
> THEM.

GREAT BENEFIT TO PRESERVE, ABSOLUTELY.  BUT THE NATURE OF
OUR ISSUE TRACKER
AND PATCH ATTACHMENTS TO IT ARE SUCH THAT FOLKS DON'T CHOOSE
TO OFFER THEIR
UNSOLICITED REVIEW BECAUSE THE PATCH FLASHED ACROSS THEIR
EYES WHILE READING
EMAIL.  'SVN DIFF -C SOME-REV URL-OF-CHECKPOINTS' IS NO
HARDER FOR THE
COMPETENT THAN LAUNCHING A WEB BROWSER AND VIEWING A PATCH
THERE.

> SO THERE CAN BE FINE GRADATIONS OF DESIRE/NEED FOR
REVIEW.  I THINK
> JUSTIN'S INSTINCTS ARE RIGHT, THAT IF THERE'S GOING TO
BE A REVIEW
> OPPORTUNITY AT ALL, WE SHOULD AT LEAST TRY TO MAKE IT
EASY.

AND THAT'S THE RIGHT ATTITUDE TO HAVE.  FWIW, I'D BE
PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH
REVERTING THE SPECIAL MAILER CHANGES ON SVN.COLLAB.NET AND
JUST HAVING A
SORT OF KNOWN POLICY THAT IN /CHECKPOINTS, OUR COMMIT
POLICIES AREN'T AS STRICT.

-- 
C. MICHAEL PILATO <CMPILATOCOLLAB.NET>
COLLABNET   <>   WWW.COLLAB.NET   <>  
DISTRIBUTED DEVELOPMENT ON DEMAND