Sure, Julian, I'll take notice of your reminding. Thank you very much! Michael
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > 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>> > >
