Re: [PATCH 03/40] Add target architecture MinGW.

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I think Reviewed-by: would indeed be a very good addition to our
patch flow convention, borrowing from the kernel folks.

You mean you have more people to blame, then? ;-)

No.  The procedure would help me keep my impatience from making
me merge patches that have not been adequately reviewed on the
list.

Recently, I ended up wasting two nights because I was not
careful enough earlier, when I was short of time and apparent
backlog was beginning to get larger and larger.

I queued some patches from the backlog to 'next' saying "ah,
they look good enough, people will notice breakages anyway," but
the breakage was not caught until 'master' got broken.

Not good.  And the list is not to blame.

By merging to 'next' I am sending a message that I think they
have been adequately reviewed (either by me or by people whose
judgement I trust), so I shouldn't have applied them to 'next'
in the first place.  I instead should have ignored them, and
waited until I had enough time and concentration to properly
review them.  Or until somebody else did --- by that time,
hopefully other people might have commented on them, saying
"these look all ok to me", or "ah that's crap".

These wasted two nights was all my fault, and as a result, there
are more patches on the list archive that I have seen (notice I
did not say "have read") that are unapplied.

As to those "more patches on the list that are unapplied", I'll
keep them unapplied for now, until there are positive feedbacks
on them.

The positive feedback may come from myself.  I am not saying I
will stop reviewing and/or applying patches nobody else
commented on.

Hi,

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Recently, I ended up wasting two nights because I was not careful enough 
earlier, when I was short of time and apparent backlog was beginning to 
get larger and larger.

I queued some patches from the backlog to 'next' saying "ah, they look 
good enough, people will notice breakages anyway," but the breakage was 
not caught until 'master' got broken.

Not good.  And the list is not to blame.

Ah, but I think that you are too harsh onto yourself.  Recently, there was 
a surge of patches, mainly because 1.5.4 was held of -- but for a good 
reason: 1.5.4 was not ready before the point in time where you decided to 
release it.

If at all, the list is to blame, for just sending patches, but not 
reviewing them.

Now, personally I know that I am not half as good a reviewer as you are, 
since you catch way more bugs than me, just by looking at the patch.

But still, "many eyes make bugs shallow" is a principle to be heeded 
_everywhere_.

So I'd say: if you think that you are short of time, and patches have not 
been reviewed properly, do not assume it _your sole_ responsibility to 
review the patches.  Make it known that other people have to step in (even 
if it is a mediocre reviewer like me).  Do not overload yourself.

So my comment about the "blame" was really tongue-in-cheek.  Please do not 
take it for anything but a joke.

And when I say that I think you are a kick-ass maintainer, I _mean_ it.

'nuff said,
Dscho