On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:13:20AM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
"Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote in message
news:address@hidden
>
>Perhaps we should just say that the Bug Squad should ignore any
>"issue to verify" that is tagged with "Patch" ? we can find
>somebody else that can check if a patch was actually pushed.
TBH I think that's ducking the issue. Taking 1535 as an example, it
was called "Adding the Tweak_engraver to the Dynamics context". If
it had been called "Making tweaks work in a Dynamics context" it
would have been easier to guess what it was intended to do. If it
had included the code you added, it would have taken a moment to
test and verify. I think we should work to a standard of easily
comprehensible patches with sample code - if we do, any bug squad
member would be able to test and verify quickly and we'll have a
nice clean list of issues to verify.
In most part, I disagree. Patches are something that developers
look at. The subject "adding the tweak_engraver to the dynamics
context" makes perfect sense to developers. In fact, if we
changed the subject, I could well imagine a developer complaining
that it made less sense!
Now, sample code may be useful for developer to communicate with
each other -- I'm not going to say that sample code is a bad
thing! But I don't think we should try to force developers to
always write sample code. Ditto for "easily comprehensible
patches" -- of course it's good to have easy-to-understand
patches. But such patches should be judged by the standards of
developers, not users. And if a patch isn't easy to understand by
developers, it should be discussed on the -devel list.
In short, I don't see any benefit from trying to make bug squad
members deal with patches, or trying to make patches deal with bug
squad members. I think the result would greatly slow down and
frustrate the jobs of both developers and bug squad members.
Cheers,
- Graham