https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Read the section under "14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:
and Suggested-by:". That might be helpful in our process too?
Warren
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike H
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces
> of work for review, please either submit it as one giant squashed change,
> or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logically clean and
> separated.
>
I'll try h
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: running into the maximum-of-4-keepalive-requests : simple workaround is
> to run with -rpcthreads=11 (or however many keepalive connections you need
> to support). I agree that the rpc code should be smarter; making the last
> rpc thread
On Friday 04 October 2013 07:35:17 you wrote:
> Remember that every individual commit is two things: what source code
> has changed, and a message explaining why you thought that change should
> be made. Commits aren't valuable in of themselves, they're valuable
> because they serve to explain to
On Friday 04 October 2013 13:32:47 you wrote:
> > There is more to a git branch than just the overall difference. Every
> > single
> > log message and diff is individually valuable.
>
> When the log messages don't accurately describe the contents of the diff,
> it's just misinformation and noise.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> The second caveat is more specific to Bitcoin: people tend to rebase
> their pull-requests over and over again until they are accepted, but
> that also means that code review done earlier doesn't apply to the later
> code pushed. Bitcoin is a par
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:14:19PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> One advantage of using github is that they're an independent third
> > party; we should think carefully about the risks of furthering the
> > impression that Bitcoin development is a closed process by moving the
> > code review it to a
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:58:51PM +0200, Arto Bendiken wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > The second caveat is more specific to Bitcoin: people tend to rebase
> > their pull-requests over and over again until they are accepted, but
> > that also means that code review
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> When I'm reviewing multiple commit pull-requests and want to see every
> change made, I always either click on the "Files Changed" tab on github,
> which collapses every commit into a single diff, or do the equivalent
> with git log.
>
> Why doe
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:30:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
> commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
> Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things.
>
> I'd like to make a small request -
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:42:29AM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
> On Friday 04 October 2013 12:30:07 Mike Hearn wrote:
> > Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
> > commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
> > Unfortunately, code review is no
> There is more to a git branch than just the overall difference. Every
> single
> log message and diff is individually valuable.
When the log messages don't accurately describe the contents of the diff,
it's just misinformation and noise. Everyone starts out by wanting a neat
collection of easy
On Friday 04 October 2013 12:30:07 Mike Hearn wrote:
> Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
> commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
> Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things.
>
> I'd like to make a small request - when su
Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of
commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things.
Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things.
I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces of
work for review, please eithe
> Upon looking at the 0.8.5 & earlier code for CDB:Rewrite(), in the
> files db.h and db.cpp, you will notice that in db.h it is declared
> bool static, but in db.cpp it isn't. Is this a problem? Or a feature?
> Or nothing at all?
It is perfect C++ code.
> Furthermore, it is called only in walle
15 matches
Mail list logo
