Thanks for the explanation. But I hope you took note of my main point: code changes should be accompanied by sufficient explanation so that the community can review/understand them. We shouldn’t have to ask for an explanation.
Making code changes transparent helps to build community. > On Jul 17, 2016, at 7:26 PM, Michael Wu <mchl....@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Julian, > > it does seem confusing in this special case, let me explain why: > 1. at the time we had the discussion, 0.4.0-incubating PPMC vote had not > finished, and therefore I was not quite sure if it's the appropriate moment > to create the patch for .jar files. So, that's why EAGLE-378 came later > than EAGLE-377. > 2. conventionally, we used to make a pull request bound to a jira ticket, > so that's why I created the ticket just before the commit. If this is not a > good manner, I will try to avoid it in the future. > 3. EAGLE-377 was created based on the result of our discussion, and > pointing to 0.5.0 as its "fix version", which could be seen as a bug-fix > plan for 0.5.0. > > Thanks for pointing the problem out. > > Michael > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Edward Zhang <yonzhang2...@apache.org > <mailto:yonzhang2...@apache.org>> > wrote: > >> I feel the same. Eagle project today needs more discussion in Eagle dev DL. >> I do see many discussions and code reviews within individual emails instead >> of going through Eagle dev DL. And some users also ask questions to >> individual email directly :-) >> >> Could I suggest Eagle committers and community please discuss important >> plans and issues in Eagle dev DL to have public record for people to review >> at any time? >> >> Thanks >> Edward >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org >> <mailto:jh...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> I am seeing a few JIRA cases which are basically just check-in comments. >>> They are created just before the commit, they explain what was done in >> the >>> commit, do not explain why, do not link to any previous or future work. >>> >>> An example of this is EAGLE-378. It arrives a couple of days after I had >> a >>> conversation with Michael [1] about cleaning up included jars, yet it >> seems >>> to be doing exactly the opposite. >>> >>> Is the Eagle project operating commit-then-review or review-then-commit? >>> It seems to be operating commit-then-review, but if so, there’s not >> enough >>> information in the public record for people to review what is happening. >>> >>> As my math teacher used to say: don’t just write down the answer, you >> need >>> to show your working! >>> >>> Julian >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EAGLE-378 < >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EAGLE-378 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EAGLE-378>> >>> >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EAGLE-377 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EAGLE-377> < >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EAGLE-377 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EAGLE-377>>
