Harald Geyer wrote:
>>> What would be better in the case of changes (especially where the original
>>> use is unclear) is a positive action -- a confirmation of correctness --.
>>>
>>> That is, someone else has looked at the proposed change, and positively
>>> asserts that he (or she) thinks this is a correct change.
>>>
>> I've thought about the possibility of requiring 2nd-party review
>> before committing changes. I don't think it would help.
>>
>
> I generally agree. However perhaps we can improve the review by somehow
> marking "If no one objects" mails in the subject. Ie prepending the
> subject with "Please review: " ...
>
Yes. And if you're asking, allow more than one day before actually
doing the change. With developers all around the world, it takes a day
before everyone even has a chance to see the mail let alone do anything
with it. :-)
And if you think it's worth a review, then allow time for people to
review it. If you're anxious to check it in, put it on a branch.
Handling lots of branches in cvs is kind of painful, but better a dead
branch than code that is lost because it was never checked in or
archived in the mailing list.
Ray