[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] [patch] unbreak make install

From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: [Groff] [patch] unbreak make install
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:05:59 +0200 (CEST)

> Lately, we are seing a considerable number of large commits
> shuffling stuff around that are inherently hard to review.  [...]

Actually, I've never reviewed Bernd's stuff in greater detail...  The
main reason was always lack of time.  But the same was true for the
mom package and gropdf, for example: My policy was to consider those
parts of groff as `sub-projects', and the respective authors had full
responsibility for their code.

> At the same time, we are seing that a large fraction of commits
> contains blatant issues, so they were apparently insufficiently
> tested before commit.  Some of these issues are fixed shortly
> afterwards (anybody remember the commit exchanging the arguments of
> Perl push()?).  But what about those that aren't?  Or what makes you
> think that no subtle issues are being introduced, at a rate of the
> same order of magnitude as the obvious, blatant issues we are all
> seeing?

I agree that this kind of workflow is not optimal, but on the other
hand: It's OK with me, as long as the issues are related to the
subprojects.  Folks, be happy that there are guys who are actually

> What we should really worry about is the integrity of groff code at
> places where malfunction is less obvious.

Certainly.  It essentially means to review all changes except Bernd's,
Peter's and Deri's subprojects :-)

> However, no kind of unit testing or even automated integration
> testing can replace careful development practices and careful manual
> testing.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]