On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Marcel Kinard <cmarc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Good call here. I should have made JIRAs for a bunch of these. I've now >> done so retroactively. > > Watching this, I very much agree that if Jira issues were created before the > commit and included in the commit message, that would have been a > communication improvement. The “before” benefit enables tracing a commit > message back to a more detailed context description in Jira. > > Another potential miscommunication here could be the intended scope of the > 4.0.x branch. The impression I get from Joe is that it was basically limited > to enabling third-party webviews. The impression I get from Andrew is that is > was more generally for breaking changes. If there is a mismatch in intention > of scope, I think that is where most of the gear-grinding may be coming from.
The goal was to be where new features for 4.0.x wind up once we're done implementing them and generally agree upon them. When people said "Let's merge the pluggable_webview branch into 4.0.x and other 4.0.x stuff into that branch" I understood that to mean that this would be what 4.0.x would eventually look like. I didn't expect it to be somewhere that people could dump 50 commits into at once just because they wanted to try something and felt that they didn't have to create their own topic branch. That's what still irritates me. The big issue is that people believe they can make arbitrary changes without caring that it affects other people on both master and on 4.0.x, and I don't see this as being resolved. This project wasn't created yesterday, and it took the effort of a lot of people to get it this far, and to just dump these commits in without caring about those people is disrespectful. The number one reason my main gut reaction to any changes to this codebase is no is because I know that a lot of people depend on what we have as an API, and when we break it, they come to me to complain. If they don't talk to me, they'll go to Simon, Tommy or other visible committers, and not the people who actually break it. I know that merging in new features is a lot of work, and it's tempting to take the shortcut, but we really should actually at least try to make an effort to work together instead of just being glib and discounting what's being said. At this point, I'm not sure it's worth the effort because we've been down this road before numerous times. I don't think this will ever sink in.
