On 01/16/2014 04:31 PM, Bradley Lowekamp wrote: > It's was not clear to me that a separate group for contributions > was proven not to work. Certainly referring to it despairingly as > "second-class" is not inspiring. Specifically what were the problems, > from the previous Review?
As of ITK 3.20.1 there were almost 350 classes in "Review": $ git ls-tree -r v3.20.1 -- Code/Review |grep '.h$' |wc -l 349 A manual check of all commits ever to remove files up to that point: $ gitk v3.20.1 --diff-filter=D -M -- Code/Review shows that only about 20 classes were ever moved to other kits. Only a dedicated sweeping effort during modularization moved them elsewhere, and that still left behind about 70 classes as of 4.5. > Additionally, How is steering new contributions into remote modules, > not creating a tiered system? I argued against using remote modules for new contributors or review and argued in favor of direct review in Gerrit for upstream integration. -Brad K _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit: http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
