[phobos] [D-Programming-Language/phobos] a15e68: Accidentally committed with a bunch of debugging c...

[Don Clugston]

On 2 May 2011 23:18, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>wrote:
>> > I'm a bit divided on it. Andrei and Lars were pushing for _all_ check-ins
>> > to
>> > be reviewed. Part of me thinks that that's overkill and yet there have
>> > been times that other developers have caught stuff that I likely
>> > wouldn't have even
>> > with smaller changes.
>> >
>> > It does seem like overkill to require a pull request for smaller changes,
>> > particularly if they really don't look like they'd cause a problem, but
>> > at the
>> > same time, the extra eyes can be really valuable, even when you don't
>> > expect
>> > it.
>> >
>> > The truly minor, non-code stuff - such as updating the changelog -
>> > shouldn't
>> > need a pull request, but at this point, I'm inclined to agree with Andrei
>> > and
>> > Lars that all (or at least very nearly all) code changes should go
>> > through pull requests.
>>
>> Actually, one of my big concerns with using pull requests is that I want
>> near-instant feedback from the auto tester to make sure my stuff works on
>> all platforms.  It's frustrating to have to wait an indeterminate amount of
>> time for such feedback.
>
> I definitely understand that, but if we do that, then code isn't getting
> reviewed. And the reviews on github have definitely been helping improve code.

> As far as code quality goes, pull requests are very much a good thing.
>
> The flip-side, of course, is the delays. It's not uncommon for a pull request
> to sit there for a week or more (in fact, I believe that a pull request that
> gets pulled in in less than a week would be a rarity at this point). But
> unless we have more people who are regularly reviewing and commenting on pull
> requests, I don't know how to fix that.
>
> Ideally, there would be a way to test your code on all platforms _before_
> creating a pull request for it, but at the moment, short of setting up all of
> the systems yourself for yourself, there's no way to do that.
>
> Still, on the whole, I think that the pull requests have had a positive
> influence on code quality, and I think that they're a good thing.

I have to say, I *totally* disagree with that. We've just three
completely erroneous pull requests merges in.
The autotester is currently failing because of it.
(1) your changes to std.datetime, which shouldn't have been pulled in
until the CTFE bug was fixed;
(2) two pull requests moving std.math intrinsics to a new druntime
file core.math.
This had been discussed as being as being a bad idea, and yet it got
pulled in anyway, and it doesn't even compile Phobos, on ANY platform.

I would say, the evidence shows:
(1)  the pull request system DEFINITELY slows development down dramatically.
(2) the pull request system DOES NOT improve quality.

Obviously, code reviews are good.
The pull requests seem to be working well for DMD. But for Phobos,
basically, they suck.