On 12/8/12 1:55 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
You can commit locally and push all at once, so practically all of them
will be available on remote repository at the same time. I did it many
times (it is actually the usual way because it easier to review later or
send only specific links to the authors of the components I want to be
reviewed).
this was all or nothing change. making several commit locally would
just meant more work for me.
I think this is not really a standing argument in the overall context.
It is very important to keep robustness of the application, meaning that
when one affects the components of other developers, it has to be an
easy way for them to spot the changes.
It is just about running several commit commands instead of one, the
push to remote is one command. What would change is the subject saying
what component was affected. If there is no proper time at the moment
for something, better don't rush it, could be harder later to sort it out.
rather than argue about administrative things,
I don't think this is an administrative thing, it is related to
development. Again, it was a suggestion. I did it because it happened to
bring in an invalid change. It was not an enforcement. Looking at very
large commits require also lot of time, usually has to be done in one
time frame. Smaller commits can be reviewed easier sequentially, at
different points in time.
i would like to get
comments on this, because it needs to be done one way or the other next:
Well, the master branch doesn't compile, pv module throws errors.
Also, the modules in modules_s have to be made to compile for the
moment, otherwise master branch compilation fails anyhow. They may be
removed, but that will still take time, it will not happen in the next
hours.
if we do that, then for consistency, get_branch and next_branch should
be dropped altogether and replaced by get_sip_branch (which already
exists) and get_next_sip_branch (which would be new).
so either new arguments to get_branch and next_branch or replace them
with get_sip_branch and get_next_sip_branch.
It is no really need to replace them (the old ones). You can add a new
function returning the pointer to the next branch and use it. For long
term, I think the one with the pointer is easier to maintain whenever we
need to add new members in the structure, I would go for that.
However, the old ones can be kept, so not much code is affected,
probably not all places where get_branch/next_branch are used need the
instance/reg-id.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
