Re: Review backlog

Thanks Norbert and Thorsten for great responses. All makes sense.


On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Thorsten Behrens <
thb@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Ashod Nakashian wrote:
> > This is a point I'd like to address. At certain times jenkins acts
> > up and fails builds randomly.
> Sure, happens (and sometimes master is broken on certain platforms) -
> but as I said, just rebase your patch then to force a new
> build. Perhaps check tinderbox.libreoffice.org, if all platforms are
> green before.
>
> > I make every effort to submit only patches that fully build _and_ work.
> Careful with those absolutes
> (c.f. https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/17194/) ;)
Thorsten, I think you're being a bit unfair with that example :) Although
your point is well taken.

If anything, it shows how careful I am with what I submit (although I
really didn't mean to push that one, I didn't think it worthwhile to
abandon it either... notice how soon I reverted?).

In fact, it's a perfect example of how I reduce my commits to bare minimum,
when they are not relevant to the fix, but good hygiene (that can/should go
separately).

Thanks.



> > I spend a tremendous amount of time to test and commit the bare
> > minimum change (sometimes not all changes are necessary to fix an
> > issue and can be a distraction in reviewing/bisecting/etc, so I
> > remove them).
> That is definitely good advise.
>
> > So again I'm confused: how should I make it clear that my patches
> > aren't experiments rather they are of reasonably high-quality and
> > ready for serious review?
> So I think that's a non-issue here, I wouldn't overly bother (also
> c.f. your 'frequent rebase' statement). See also Norbert's answer for
> why things might be a bit slower currently, and my tip on how to poke
> individual reviewers for a conversation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Thorsten