Thanks Norbert and Thorsten for great responses. All makes sense.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Thorsten Behrens < t...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Ashod Nakashian wrote: > > This is a point I'd like to address. At certain times jenkins acts > > up and fails builds randomly. > > > Sure, happens (and sometimes master is broken on certain platforms) - > but as I said, just rebase your patch then to force a new > build. Perhaps check tinderbox.libreoffice.org, if all platforms are > green before. > > > I make every effort to submit only patches that fully build _and_ work. > > > Careful with those absolutes > (c.f. https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/17194/) ;) > > Thorsten, I think you're being a bit unfair with that example :) Although your point is well taken. If anything, it shows how careful I am with what I submit (although I really didn't mean to push that one, I didn't think it worthwhile to abandon it either... notice how soon I reverted?). In fact, it's a perfect example of how I reduce my commits to bare minimum, when they are not relevant to the fix, but good hygiene (that can/should go separately). Thanks. > > I spend a tremendous amount of time to test and commit the bare > > minimum change (sometimes not all changes are necessary to fix an > > issue and can be a distraction in reviewing/bisecting/etc, so I > > remove them). > > > That is definitely good advise. > > > So again I'm confused: how should I make it clear that my patches > > aren't experiments rather they are of reasonably high-quality and > > ready for serious review? > > > So I think that's a non-issue here, I wouldn't overly bother (also > c.f. your 'frequent rebase' statement). See also Norbert's answer for > why things might be a bit slower currently, and my tip on how to poke > individual reviewers for a conversation. > > Cheers, > > -- Thorsten >
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
