|
Give the choice between the meant-to-be-serious guidelines, which I
think can be paraphrased as: We really want to have a pretty open check-in policy. But this means that you should be extra careful if you check something in. ...and the meant-to-be-funny chart that shows everything going through code review, I think I'd choose the code review. I hate code reviews as much as the next person, but if you're working on a real-world, widely-used, huge application like JDK, the need for quality trumps the individual need to avoid pain. Hi Andy, On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 12:22 -0500, Andy Tripp wrote: > > > I suppose this is more of a troll than a criticism, sorry about that. No worries. We know trolls and how to deal with them. We do have a flow chart that people have to follow when contributing to GNU Classpath. It is all very formal really: http://gnu.wildebeest.org/~mark/patch.png Seriously, follow the guidelines published at: http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/docs/hacking.html#SEC9 And at the developer wiki: http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/ClasspathFirstSteps and you will get a long way. > Again, sorry for the rant/troll. It was fun. Keep it cool! Cheers, Mark |
