Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2006 10:50 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: > Your work load is impressive! I would like to advice you to ask for svn > RW access to Lars.
I would support that. > I wouldn't like you to be frustrated by people not > having enough time to review your (big and frequent) patches. This problem would not be solved by rw access. rw access is good for small obvious stuff that can go in after announcing it, but review is needed for more complex stuff, and after a consensus on a patch is reached, but it does not replace review. I can understand your frustation very well, but I agree with Jean-Marc and Lars that review is needed. If you want to get a feeling what happens without review look at the postscript bounding box parsing code in readBB_from_PSFile() and then try to replace it by something that works. This is very difficult, because that function is called often and it is not clear what exactly the callers need. I am sure that fixing this now is more effort than it would have been to fix this before it went in, not counting the bug hunting time of many people who where bitten by this bug. > Basically the short term goal which is to replace on-the-fly sh script > generation and execution with on-the-fly python equivalent. The > medium-term goal is to do that all in C++ (using boost::filesystem and > forkedcall or maybe Angus' work on forked process handling). If the goal is really to go to C++ I would skip the python part. Why create additional work? Georg
