[Box Backup-dev] Reviewing code

Charles Lecklider boxbackup-dev at fluffy.co.uk
Mon Aug 7 17:15:29 BST 2006


Martin Ebourne wrote:
> Charles Lecklider <boxbackup at invis.net> wrote:
>> Martin Ebourne wrote:
>>> In the case of box though I think it makes a lot of sense to set the
>>> barrier high. Backup software is always under tested (in the sense that
>>> users don't tend to keep a close eye on it and only notice something bad
>>> when it fails) and over relied upon.
>>
>> I think there's more than 1 barrier, at least for me:
> 
> Charles,
> 
> I was specifically talking about barriers on commiting code re: depth of
> code review. You've somewhat taken my comment and gone down a whole
> different road!

A tangent perhaps, but if people can't write the code in the first place
there's little need to worry about the review process....

> While your points are all reasonable mostly Chris and now Nick are
> working hard to resolve almost all of your issues. Although there is no
> "official" win32 branch it is clear from reading that list that the
> chris/general branch is where Chris has been doing all his windows
> development. I'm sure he wouldn't mind you taking that and fixing it so
> it compiles on VC, and I'm sure he'd be happy to commit any changes you
> made. Chris has stated his reasons why he won't use VC himself and they
> seem sound to me. He's also stated he's happy to accept other's work on
> VC so he's clearly open minded about it.

That'd be a good start. More importantly though, is the Win32-specific
version of BoxConfig.h kept up-to-date? That's where I've had most
problems in the past, and where Cygwin is needed otherwise.

-C




More information about the Boxbackup-dev mailing list