qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aidan Skinner" <ai...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Jira workflow change ticket and code review process.
Date Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:17:34 GMT
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Andrew Stitcher <astitcher@redhat.com> wrote:

> I do agree that code is always better when it's reviewed, but I think
> anything like this would have to be enforced (at least somewhat) for
> this to have value.

That's why I'm attempting to enforce it. :)

> Also attached patches start to rot after a while and without info as to
> what version they change they can be hard to apply later.

I totally agree this is a problem, I just don't think it's a big
enough problem that it makes review-then-commit impossible. People did
it before we had fancy schmancy tooling. ;)

>> [1] For $DVCS == git, as it is clearly superior to bzr and hg in crucial ways
>
> Care to elaborate? I've only used git, so have no real idea of the
> differences.

hg causes a merge that needs resolved by hand every time, even if
there aren't any conflicts, so rebasing is more expensive (it works
okish for patch based workflows like Mozilla has).

bzr branches are basically complete copies, so are more expensive in
terms of disk space and it also lacks rebase (but does have loom for
quilt style things, and a rebase plugin, but it's not as well
integrated as git).

- Aidan
-- 
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
"Nine-tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time." - Theodore Roosevelt

Mime
View raw message