Re: Re: cvs: pearweb /public_html/trackback trackback-admin.php

Pierre wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:43:55 -0400 > cellog@php.net (Greg Beaver) wrote: > > >>1) if you haven't tested the code, don't commit it >>2) if you can't test it, post a patch to pear-webmaster >>3) if you've tested it, commit it >>4) if it's obvious you haven't tested it, you get a warning. On the >>second commit of obviously untested code, your cvs karma is revoked >>for 4 weeks, minimum. > > > For your information, it was < 1 day for both "problems" together (both > were not critical for our infrastructure). The last change the problem > reporters did blocked pearweb for 5 days, who needs to loose anything? > > Short version, move on unless you have something usefull to say. I've been unable to get a great internet connection, but now I have one, so I will send a quick message. Pierre, I would like to point out that I said "test before committing" which has nothing to do with register_globals. (Anatoly, are you listening?) "committing" refers to CVS. I also replied to a CVS commit message. I would like to point out this message from October 12, 2005 as an example of a blatant commit without any testing whatsoever. I am referring to commits of this nature [names and such removed to protect the guilty]: @@ -24,8 +24,7 @@ */ // Have this style sheet included in all bug pages. -$extra_styles[] = '/css/bugs.css'; - +extra_styles('/css/bugs.css';); // For distinguishing this site from PECL $site = 'pear'; $siteBig = 'PEAR'; Here, this line: extra_styles('/css/bugs.css';); has a parse error. Fortunately, the error was caught and fixed right away. Were pearweb not a live site, this would not be a big deal. This is why I proposed: 1) temporarily imposing a "don't commit without testing or you lose karma" rule 2) moving towards a non-cvs based pear.php.net This is hardly grounds for revolt. I understand why everyone is defensive: this would require more accountability, possibly scaring off developers. However, the people I have been working with on pearweb (Pierre, Helgi, Arnaud, Lukas, Martin) are not a bunch of lilly-livered wusses who need hand-holding. Don't try to con me, none of you is weak, and we can all agree to a basic standard of coding with no pain. Again, I am *NOT* suggesting we revoke karma for non-working commits just because they don't work. I'm suggesting that if it is patently obvious that a developer does 2 commits or more without testing prior to committing, it should result in one of the two: 1) voluntary penance via posting patches only for a month 2) karma revocation Greg