[m-rev.] Handling pull requests
Julien Fischer
jfischer at opturion.com
Tue Jan 8 12:21:27 AEDT 2013
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Paul Bone <paul at bone.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:31:52PM +1100, Julien Fischer wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Peter Wang <novalazy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 11:39:12 +1100, Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Paul Bone <paul at bone.id.au> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > I think the bit that needs discussion is how we do code reviews now that
>> >>> > we're using git and github. What I'd like to acheive here is a way that any
>> >>> > of us can do code reviews, with any tools we like (eg vim and diff/patch or
>> >>> > github or git & vim). And that the process should be simple regardless of
>> >>> > which tools we want to use. Eg: I do not want to "force" github usage onto
>> >>> > anyone.
>> >>>
>> >>> The existing process, i.e. send the log message + patch to the mailing list,
>> >>> is fine IMO.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed. That pull request emails don't contain the diff is a huge step
>> >> backwards. Email + vim is better than any web interface.
>> >>
>> >> Non-core developers may prefer to send pull requests, but their changes
>> >> won't likely be very big anyway so not much to review.
>> >
>> > That's fine. One of us can post the diffs corresponding to the pull
>> > request to the
>> > list. (Most of the pull requests I've seen so far certainly require
>> > some discussion.)
>>
>> For instance, Michael Richter's README.bootstrap change, that Paul
>> just committed
>> is wrong in number of respects and *should* have been reviewed before
>> it was commited.
>> (For example, configuring the bootstrap compiler with
>> --enable-libgrades=asm_fast.gc
>> will result in a broken installation on Mac OS X; the correct option
>> to use would be
>> --disable-most-grades.)
>
> (I've CC'd Micheal as he's not currently on the lists, and should be.)
>
> I've never been sure about what --disable-most-grades means. Sure it
> "Disables most grades" but what I want to know is which ones are kept.
When in doubt, read the documentation. From the ``Fine Tuning'' section
of INSTALL:
#
# The option --disable-most-grades reduces the set of installed grades
# to a "minimum" level for developers (just the default grade and the
# grades corresponding to the `--debug' and `--high-level-code'
# options).
...
> This is not what I want configure to do when I only want enough Mercury to
> bootstrap with, specifically:
> .debug is redundant as .decldebug is present.
> I don't need debugging at all if I'm bootstrapping.
> I only need one of (the best of) the LLC or HLC grades.
It's the closest thing we currently have that can be used portably.
> Maybe we should have an option such as --enable-one-grade-only
I agree. I prefer --enable-minimal-install as the name though. (It fits
in better with the existing --enable-minimal-hlc-trail-install option.)
If there's general agreement as to what the name should be I'll go ahead
and implement it.
As and aside: why is INSTALL.git named that, but referred to as INSTALL_GIT
inside the file?
Cheers,
Julien.
More information about the reviews
mailing list