Re: [cdt-dev] Time for Voting?

[John Camelon <jcamelon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this is a terrible idea for
patches, but a good idea for features.   

The patch process can be slow enough
for some people involved without having to paralyze a particular component
with either a rubber stamp approval or nickel & diming implementation.
 
Instead of increased process on the
patch list, I would suggest better standards for documenting and explaining
the features.  Perhaps patches cannot be applied before a spec is
reviewed and approved.   

Personally, I have a huge amount of
work (all implementation) that I need to get done over the next couple
of months, and I cannot fathom changing how we work this late into 1.2
without breaking our schedule completely.  

Vote v = new Vote( -1 ); 

JohnC

Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/07/2003 05:39 PM

Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	Re: [cdt-dev] Task Tags on Project Properties Page/Time for Voting?

Two points,

1) Sean, please send messages to this list as plain text.  The digest
gets 
messed up when you don't.

2) Good point on the TODO tags.  This is another feature that went
in 
without proper review.  Also, whatever you are doing Sean with natures
needs to be reviewed (every C/C++ project should have the cnature, if you
need new natures, do that instead).

I'm starting to think that it is time to start voting on patches.  New
features are getting in through the patch list without review.  With
so 
many contributors putting work in, and I appreciate everyone's efforts
in 
this, but I think the committers need to start clamping down on what they
are committing.  In the end, the CDT needs to be of the highest quality
since we are including it in commercial products and to do that we need
to 
show constraint.

I would suggest that each patch needs the agreement of at least two 
committers (preferably from different companies) with no descenters. 
Essentially every committer has a veto.  The PMC should have the right
to 
overrule any vetoes to make sure we don't get stuck in an impasse.  I'm
not sure if this is the eclipse way, but it'll ease us into a bit of 
formality here.

Thoughts?

Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada



Sean Evoy/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/07/2003 05:09 PM
Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx


To
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
[cdt-dev] Task Tags on Project Properties Page







Hi, 
Now that I am thinking about property pages, what was the motivation for
allowing the user to set task tags for a specific project? Obviously, this
is a workspace preference, and there is UI support to add, remove and edit
tags in the preference page. So, what work-flow are we supporting by 
allowing the user to override this at the project level? Do we really 
think that a lot of users are going to change only the priority of a tag
frequently enough to justify another property page? Or are they going to
create an overridden TODO tag just for one project? The reason I ask is
that currently the tag property page is associated with the cnature. If
a 
project does not have the cnature, this page will not show up. 

Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev