Hi, On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Alfred wrote:
> > TL;DR: if this patch was accepted into NewPascal w/o comments or concerns, > > then "ouch"... > > Thanks for your advice. > This is exactly why NewPascal is here ! > > Have an idea. Implement. Make public. > perfect:=false; > while (NOT perfect) Use; Get feedback; Correct mistakes; Test; if ok then > perfect:=true; end; Well, we're talking about two different things. In this interpretation, NewPascal serves as some kind of FPC-experimental branch. Which is nice, and nothing to have against it. But still, before merging anything to a master branch, there should be a way to review patches for obvious mistakes, or simply doing things in a wrong way. I see your pull request was accepted without comments in four hours after its submission. Which - given the amount of IFDEFs it contains, still "ouch", IMO. No offense, and nothing personal, just the criticism of the general approach towards code quality in a project with the size of FPC. However, I agree that the FPC team should have a more streamlined way of accepting and reviewing patches, than posting diffs to a bugtracker or a mailing list. The Bazaar went elsewhere over the years, which is always a problem for an opensource project. But the tooling problem is only part of the story. > I will have a look at the patches again. Cool, please keep us posted for updates. Charlie _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel