[Mono-dev] RE: [Mono-patches] r57149 -in trunk/mcs/class/System.Data:System.DataSystem.Data.Common Test/ProviderTests/System.Data.SqlClientTest/System.Data
kostat at mainsoft.com
Mon Mar 6 04:32:04 EST 2006
You are right, this not always works well. But even if it works
sometimes, I think it worth to give it a chance. After all it may safe a
lot of time, efforts and create better code. This may be even more
important when the original authors are available and can provide
information about their considerations. I recall your comments on the
fixes I submitted in Xml - they were very helpful.
From: mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Atsushi
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] RE: [Mono-patches] r57149 -in
It sounds reasonable only if everyone is ready to "sign"
certificates for each of non-trivial patches so that he or she
has assured that each does not break anything.
I don't think such "review" work well. It should be fine if someone
who broke tests fix the problem, or just revert in case it was
impossible. That's what has happened to such patches that are
accompanied by "please review the patch" posts.
The same amount of "massive" patches happen to mcs/gmcs land
without any approvals from the maintainers, kinda everyday.
Boris Kirzner wrote:
> Hello Senga,
> One of your latest updates introduces a regression (see attached test
> case, passes on r57148 but fails on r57149), due to the change in Key
> default row state filter.
> Please, next time you want to introduce some changes that has such a
> wide effect, especially in the code you do not wrote by your own,
> it worth to give this fixes an opportunity to be reviewed by the
> community before applying them.
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
More information about the Mono-devel-list