On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:34:47AM -0500, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 07:36 AM, strk wrote:
>
> > Removed from Savannah project ?! Really ?
>
> I can not allow a power-hungry developer to continue to reverting my
> changes.
Power-hungry ? I've always seen Benjamin publically reviewing
yo
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:36:20AM -0500, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 07:25 AM, strk wrote:
> > We still need to figure why it takes cookies refusal to avoid the
> > "an error occurred" message. Not sure anyone is looking at it, but
> > I agree it would help keeping the user base.
>
> Tha
On 05/22/2010 07:25 AM, strk wrote:
>
>> * We figure out why Rob's pre-checkin test runs are not showing
>> things that Benjamin's post-checkin test runs make obvious.
It's simple, the System test have been broken for awhile anyway, but
nobody noticed. I fixed them in my branch, but hadn
On 05/22/2010 07:36 AM, strk wrote:
> Removed from Savannah project ?! Really ?
I can not allow a power-hungry developer to continue to reverting my
changes. You have no right at all to do so, I started this project,
funded your work for many years, and all you do is spit in my face.
> Looking
On 05/22/2010 01:13 AM, Benjamin Wolsey wrote:
> There seems to be no prospect of getting the maintainer to understand
> this, as the same problems have arisen again and again, and as I've been
> removed from the project on Savannah, it seems there is no choice anyway
> but to move development of
On 05/22/2010 07:42 AM, Benjamin Wolsey wrote:
>> -// test the System::security.allowDomain method
>> -check_equals ( typeof(System.security.allowDomain), 'function' );
>> -
>> -// test the System.security.loadPolicyFile method
>> -check_equals ( typeof(System.security.loadPolicyFile), 'function')
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 02:42:06PM +0200, Benjamin Wolsey wrote:
>
> > > * We keep the tree compiling and passing its test suite almost
> > > every day.
> >
> > +1
>
> This unfortunately also does not address the real problem. Take an
> example from yesterday:
...
> What does the maintai
> > * We keep the tree compiling and passing its test suite almost
> > every day.
>
> +1
This unfortunately also does not address the real problem. Take an
example from yesterday:
I run the testsuite and find it broken. Although I generally trust the
testsuite, I run it in the proprieta
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 08:13:43AM +0200, Benjamin Wolsey wrote:
> There seems to be no prospect of getting the maintainer to understand
> this, as the same problems have arisen again and again, and as I've been
> removed from the project on Savannah, it seems there is no choice anyway
> but to mo
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 01:54:47PM +0200, Bastiaan Jacques wrote:
> While fixing the testsuite and having things compile are very useful,
> it does not solve the problem of (tree-wide) code quality degradation.
Can you be more specific about the quality degradation
you're talking about ?
--strk;
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 05:51:49PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> My preference for an outcome here would be:
>
> * We figure out why Rob's pre-checkin test runs are not showing
> things that Benjamin's post-checkin test runs make obvious.
+1
> * We keep the tree compiling and passing
In my opinion it is necessary to have some sort of review policy, if we
want to keep our developers together (which we all do, I think). While
fixing the testsuite and having things compile are very useful, it does
not solve the problem of (tree-wide) code quality degradation. I think a
review pol
12 matches
Mail list logo
