Luciano Resende wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng <enjoyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples
into trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right
way).
+1, And this might really be the reason for having this whole
discussion. In Tuscany, usually people would dump samples into samples
and only look into them when during the release time. Having a reduced
number of samples will help, but sample ownership might be the main
issue here.
I agree that sample code shouldn't be dumped into trunk with the expectation
that someone will get it into proper shape for the next release.
Regarding ownership, this word might be interpreted in different ways by
different people. If it means that someone who commits a new sample should
do the whole job of making sure that it meets all the requirements for
samples in trunk, I'm +1 for this. Another interpretation of ownership could
be to regard a particular individual as responsible for maintaining particular
samples (or other parts of the codebase) on an ongoing basis. In Tuscany we
don't have this kind of personal ownership but instead regard the whole
community as responsible, and I wouldn't want to see that change.
For non-sample code that's added to trunk, I think we have general agreement
that the new code needs to build OK, have unit tests, and pass its unit tests.
For sample code that's added to trunk, all the above apply and there are
additional requirements that the sample includes documentation describing
what it does, how to run it, and the expected results from running it.
It's also a requirement that the sample runs correctly and does what the
documentation says it will do.
Simon
