Subject: Re: [boost] [pimpl] No documentation for pointer semant
From: Dave Gomboc (dave_gomboc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-07 18:19:33
[Paul A Bristow]:
> I unhappy with a review rigid policy that nothing can be changed during a
> review. It isn't always helpful.
> We never accept anything without requiring some changes?
> Can we instead now use git's easy branches to specify a fixed 'master'
> branch, but allow the author to update a 'develop' branch as the review
> I believe that changes can be made to a reviewed library during a review
> as long as the 'master' branch does not change. After all we want all
> reviewers to be looking at the same 'master' branch as the code to be
> reviewed. But if the developer wants to make changes to other branches
> during the review I think this should be allowed.
> May I suggest that either the library author or the review manager
> ought to, near the commencement of the review, identify a specific
> version to be reviewed? This is quite distinct from identifying a
> branch name for a conventional branch such as master that is expected
> to change frequently even over a two-week period. A specific checkout
> is typically identified by a SHA: a branch name such as 'master' is
> primarily just an alias to the SHA to which it currently resolves.
> I think a tag would be a better alternative to a SHA. It's more readable and
> GitHub creates a downloadable archive for it so git is not required to review
> the library.
Sure, using a tag would be great. (I wasn't aware that GitHub had
that additional functionality.) Mainly, I have concern that Boost
might adopt a procedure whereby committing to master is not permitted
during a review. I want to discourage the mindset that changes can't
be committed to their logical place (or even at all) just because a
review is currently underway, and so tried to show that it is not
difficult to avoid such an encumberance.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk