code cleanup in druntime and phobos

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 30 Aug 2014 14:05, "Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> "Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote in
message news:mailman.107.1409402768.5783.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>
>
>> Responses like this aren't particularly useful either.  We have a
'patch' keyword in bugzilla
>> (from memory), and people are free to use that as a tool to manage bugs
raised against D.
>
>
> The patch keyword is (as I'm sure you know) from the pre-github days when
contribution was done with bugzilla.  This system did not work well.
>

Every time I submitted a patch to bugzilla, it was in the next release. I
can't say I share this view.

It's like having a meeting on IRC vs. Skype.  Both get the job done, but
those on Skype think that IRC is so arcane.

>> In fact, has anyone recently gone through bug tickets with attachments
and checked for
>> patches?  This could be one thing to do for EMSI's monthly bug squashing
event (a similar
>> thing is already done for squashing regressions or ICE's in the beta
releases).
>
>
> It would be useful if someone did this, but presenting somebody else's
patch on github is not ideal.  The original author is usually in the best
position to update and defend the patch.
>

If the fix can be done better, someone can raise a new PR (Kenji and Walter
occasionally do this), closing the original.

As for defending. I don't think we should worry about that.  Patches on
bugzilla should be taken with salt.

>> It doesn't take a lot of work to do this.
>
>
> It doesn't take a lot of work to open a pull request.
>

In that case, there's no reason why you shouldn't raise the PR for the
original author then.  :o)

Iain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140830/415d0329/attachment-0001.html>