Hi Conrad,
Nice to hear from you :)

See skipping any of the items in this checklist (by a contributor or a 
committer) had many times lead to regression issues in past, which are far 
more trouble-some and time-consuming to deal with. That's the trade-off.
SWT being multi-platform code-base(combination of Java and native code per 
platform) that's the very nature of it... why not improvise on things 
after doing all the hard-work of becoming an Eclipse platform committer.
 
Regards,
Niraj Modi


From:   Conrad Groth <i...@conrad-groth.de>
To:     "Eclipse platform general developers list." 
<platform-dev@eclipse.org>
Date:   04/16/2019 11:56 PM
Subject:        Re: [platform-dev] Regarding SWT patch reviews
Sent by:        platform-dev-boun...@eclipse.org



These (high) expectations were the reason why I stepped back from 
providing further SWT patches for windows.


Am 16. April 2019 15:51:43 MESZ schrieb Niraj Modi 
<niraj.m...@in.ibm.com>:
Updated FAQ entry: 
https://www.eclipse.org/swt/faq.php#swtpatchtestingdetailswith below note 
suggesting the importance of this check list:
Note: Patches satisfying all the items on the list may/will be reviewed 
with priority. 


Regards,
Niraj Modi


From:        "Daniel Megert" <daniel_meg...@ch.ibm.com>
To:        "Eclipse platform general developers list." 
<platform-dev@eclipse.org>
Date:        04/16/2019 06:32 PM
Subject:        Re: [platform-dev] Regarding SWT patch reviews
Sent by:        platform-dev-boun...@eclipse.org



> +1 to Alex opinion. Our target should be to longer the entrance barriers 
for new contributors not increase them.
+1 too.

Dani



From:        Lars Vogel <lars.vo...@vogella.com>
To:        "Eclipse platform general developers list." 
<platform-dev@eclipse.org>
Date:        16.04.2019 14:02
Subject:        Re: [platform-dev] Regarding SWT patch reviews
Sent by:        platform-dev-boun...@eclipse.org



+1 to Alex opinion. Our target should be to longer the entrance barriers 
for new contributors not increase them.

Especially in SWT Win and Mac in which only very few committers are 
active.



Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurt...@redhat.com> schrieb am Di., 16. Apr. 2019, 
13:45:


On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:38 PM Niraj Modi <niraj.m...@in.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi All,
In order to speed up the patch review cycle, we have framed a checklist of 
testing that's needed against an SWT patch submitted for review.
Here is the complete list that needs to be associated with the patch:
Results of the test snippet (if any) associated with that specified bug. 
Results of the Widget's new behavior(if applicable) as tested with various 
SWT examples: ControlExample.java, CustomControlExample.java and 
BrowserExample.java 
For changes done to any specific widget, which all related SWT snippets 
are covered from the list of: SWT Snippets. 
When adding a new API always add new JUnit tests as separate gerrit 
patch(as gerrit validation will only succeed when the new API is in master 
and an IBuild exists) 
For Windows only patch, which all operating systems are covered like 
Windows7, Windows10(at times specific version of Win10 if applicable) 
For MAC only patch, patch should be tested on latest OS version. 
For Linux only patch, which all GTK versions are covered (GTK3, GTK4 or 
both) and also if applicable what all desktop managers(gnome, wayland 
etc..) are covered. 
For patches across multiple platform, the patch should have been tested on 
all affected platforms. 
Also if you expect some behavior change in Eclipse, always launch Eclipse 
in self-hosted mode to verify the behavior. 

Same entry added to SWT FAQ page: 
https://www.eclipse.org/swt/faq.php#swtpatchtestingdetails

I appreciate the list but we have to tone it down. If all these things are 
mandated before a patch is even looked at I can assure you that very few 
people (if anyone) contributes back.  Currently a lot of these 
verifications happen from reviewers/committers (at least for the GTK port) 
as it is simply not reasonable to expect someone contributing on their 
free time to invest in having all the complicated infrastructure to do 
these checks.
So all these should become like - "Patches satisfying all the items on the 
list may/will be reviewed with priority".


Regards,
Niraj Modi
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe 
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev


_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe 
from this list, visit
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.eclipse.org_mailman_listinfo_platform-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_TZ5U2NJh9lXkaj4_qKbwIbEVB6nLCFcKlW-Qi4EQTE&m=WfP20zdBLrIeQplI95C9y9-cRZT8oDZ4aFIfQGfFmd0&s=LwWaFpsiBELqozeJquSMXwk3oP-yjufBAxaqpeXTt_U&e=



_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev

Reply via email to