Le 3/14/12 10:48 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Kiran Ayyagari<kayyag...@apache.org>wrote:
Selcuk,
I have seen you asking several times on this list for reverting commits,
this seems to be a bit derogatory in OSS spirit and team work.
It can certainly be misinterpreted this way. I think we just need more
communication about why one may need a revert.
Revert requests are OK. There's nothing wrong with that and any committer
can veto a change but they just need to provide reasons. I think we just
need to help people understand this.
Selcuk I'm sure meant no harm and can provide more reasoning.
I'm pretty sure that there are some misunderstanding or langage mismatch
here, both of us not being english natives does not help for sure.
Go ahead and make your changes on top of these if you wish to apply
your fix, commits need not be reverted for this.
That's also another option but let's just communicate about whatever
difficulties or problems a commit might introduce. If someone is having
problems as a result of commits let's get those reasons out there on the
list.
I have no problem reverting things. Pride has no place in a community
like ours. I just need good reasons for reverting.
I have a feeling the code is starting to move before some of the work can
be finished on it and that might produce discomfort. But we're not mind
readers so we need to communicate this.
+1
I just have to add that communication is the key here. When I commit
something, I do it with extreme caution, which does not protect me
against errors. When I don't get something I ask questions. When I ask
questions, I'm also expecting answers, and my commits are not a sign
that I don't want to wait. Actually, my commit was not necessarely
related to the questsions I have asked, but more related to my
understanding of the current code. If this collide with some change
someone is doing at the same time, how am I suppose to know it ? Simply
by communicating about the ongoing work on the mailing list.
The key to a successful project is collaboration. I can understand that
Selcuk needs a safe place to work without being perturbated by external
commits that make it more difficult for him to keep going, but then, a
branch is not the right place to work. We have sandboxes, which are
dedicated, and by no mean I will commit in someone else sandbox.
With the branch, the idea is to keep going all together to get the txn
layer working, with all the needed documentation and with people being
able to fix it even if Selcuk is not around to fix things.
I hope that we can move on now. No harm. We are big boys...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
