> Changing working code seemed more unstable than leaving it alone > during the merge phase. While I could look at fixing that now, like I > keep having to say, I planned to do that as a followup phase after the > merge. I don't see any real reason why it has to be now. Real soon is > good enough for me.
It would help to ensure that it doesn't get forgotten. > Review comments about compiler warnings aren't useful, that's what > the compiler is for. Those are the kinds of things I'll be fixing in the > near future as I work on the merge. Doing it this way gives more time > for review than waiting till everything in the branch is perfect. I'm > not rushing things. I think that fixing compiler warnings is the first thing you should do, well before even committing code, let alone asking for a review. Expecting your reviewers not only to identify bugs (bearing in mind that your only reviewer so far doesn't even have the help of a compiler), but also then to filter out the ones that are obvious enough for its author to have noticed, is a bit unreasonable! bwy -- -- The current release of Gnash is 0.8.8 http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ Benjamin Wolsey, Software Developer - http://benjaminwolsey.de C++ and Open-Source Flash blog - http://www.benjaminwolsey.de/bwysblog xmpp:[email protected] http://identi.ca/bwy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
