Re: The "unstable" mcview

[Roland Illig <roland illig gmx de>]

Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> No - but this development could happen on a branch and once you were
>  confident with the new code you could merge it in the main trunk.
> You have done nearly 60 commits so far to viewer.c only for the last
> 3 weeks.

I have done that intentionally. With every commit, I have done (almost)
a single, simple thing. That makes reviewing the separate things easier.

> I don't think this is the right way to go - it could have been 
> avoided if you have come up with a final, well thought patch and 
> eventually split it into several chunks.

Well, maybe 60 separate chunks are too much. ;)

> Anyone unaware of what is going on and checking out from CVS could 
> get a broken viewer and start reporting bugs which you would 
> eventually correct or which are already fixed. We would have to worry
> only about the viewer then. And also a bug that eventually showed 
> with pre-April view code may no longer be traceable.

Does that mean you want all the mc code unchanged, just in case someone
reports a bug? That's what "cvs update -D'last month'" is for.

> You complain about the time it takes to review a patch. Well, have 
> you considered all the people who have posted to the list and didn't 
> get their patch reviewed ? I think it is kind of unfair the way you 
> try to enforce your vision of MC.

Accepted. So I promise to look at some patches from other people.

Roland