We need to keep in mind the spirit of the rule which is as Pascal mentioned. I always thought the lines of code was a guideline and certainly doesn’t excuse the committer from taking a good look at the code and even if it’s less than 1000 lines, if it looks like a algorithm that could be taken from somewhere else that it gets reviewed.
From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Fred Bricon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: Cross project issues <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 10:12 AM To: Cross project issues <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions I'm not sure how the workload from the IP team is split, between running automated IP checks (blackduck or similar) and manual work. But I think it'd be interesting if at least the automated part could be included as part of a CI build checking gerrit contributions. That'd would surely offload the IP team work significantly. On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Pascal Rapicault <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It is my understanding that the 1000 lines limit is here to prevent code to be copied from an external place and be added to Eclipse. This is a good measure. However, I think there is a number of contributions where the code has obviously not been copied. For example, this is the case with the contribution Jan mentioned. There is no way the code could be coming from somewhere else. It is way too specific to Tycho and the feature being added. IMO, the IP process could be relaxed and thus the IP teamwork load reduced, if committers were trusted on what to put through the IP process and what not. With such a rule, a committer who has doubts about 200 lines of code could take it through the IP process, and yet for things that are obviously "new" code, would not. IMO, such a process based on committer trust could help focus the efforts of the IP team on things that are potentially problematic. On 15-11-19 05:47 AM, Ed Merks wrote: Yes, I believe it's an important aspect of Eclipse that makes it stand out as the best place to be if you want the broadest possible community of adopters. Of course this benefit doesn't come without a cost and of course that can be frustrating. In a specific case of a contribution that consists of a relatively smaller changes to the framework/tool with a relatively larger addition of test case(s), it would seem reasonable to split the two, if it's important that the change to the tools/framework show up as quickly as possible. I certainly don't suggest gaming the system, though I do tend to point out to the IP committee all the ways it can be gamed, and will be gamed by developers who are frustrated and don't take the issue seriously. I ask questions such as how long can a line be? One can fit quite a lot on a line line and reformat it later. Also, why should a blank line count for anything? Is a line with just a curly brace on it really IP? And yes, of course I make them aware that contributions can be split into smaller chunks... Perhaps this specific review period overlapped with EclispeCon Europe where we had the pleasure of spending personal time with the with the IP staff... On 19/11/2015 11:31 AM, Christian Campo wrote: Wouldnt it be worth to hear what the IP Team has to say why this took so long ? I see that Sharon appologized on the CQ that it took so long. That made me believe that this was an exception. Does every CQ with 1000 lines take so long ? What is the experience of others about reviews with code contributions. As I remember vaguely (and that might be incorrect) the IP team runs automatic scans over the code, but I am not sure what else they do. I for once believe the work of the IP Team is important and one of the core values of the EF vs say Github and I take it serious. Just my 2 cents christian Am 19.11.15, 11:22 schrieb "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Sievers, Jan" unter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: If everybody tells me there are ways to dodge around that rule (and of course I know there are), the question arises why do we have the rule in the first place. Seems a little absurd to me. the effort is not minimal if I have to artificially split up commits. Or maybe you expect me to explain to contributors: "look, we have this process but nobody takes it serious anyway. so please split up your commit into several < 1000 LOC chunks" ? Best Regards, Jan On 19/11/15 11:00, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Ed Willink" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the tests as a separate contribution gets you twice the limit with minimal effort. Perhaps a 10000 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable code such as tests and build tools. Regards Ed Willink On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote: Hi, in the course of https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328 we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus needed a CQ. It took about one month to review it. I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load, so the following is in no way a criticism of the people who actually do the legal review. Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule. IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives for a thriving opensource project. Here is why I think so: The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to prove it works. This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to thoroughly test. Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms of LOC. However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you want to attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit. Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish them with an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be merged. Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because technically you can split up any commit into any number of smaller commits below the 1000 line limit. Best Regards, Jan _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev ------------------------------------------------------------- compeople AG Untermainanlage 8 60329 Frankfurt/Main fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%2069%20%2F%2027%2022%2018%200> fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%2069%20%2F%2027%2022%2018%2022> web: www.compeople.de<http://www.compeople.de> Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759 USt-IdNr. DE207665352 ------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev -- "Have you tried turning it off and on again" - The IT Crowd And if that fails, then http://goo.gl/tnBgH5
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
