Am Wednesday, 1. June 2011, 10:25:35 schrieb Sascha Peilicke:

> On Wednesday 01 June 2011 10:18:49 Adrian Schröter wrote:

> > Am Wednesday, 1. June 2011, 10:05:51 schrieb Sascha Peilicke:

> > > Just as a side note, this is not the first example, but one of those

> > > commits that made a total rewrite necessary. By quality, the last ones

> > > by Ludwig and Vincent aren't any better either. Ideally, fixing sth.

> > > shouldn't be only about adding lines but about re-factoring lines.

> > > Otherwise the next commiter might be tempted to add his personal 'osc

> > > scratchmyback' command w/o communication too.

> >

> > Don't complain without telling with which code this should be

> > merged/refactored with ;) And current code did just the wrong thing

> > leading to invalid data (multiple bugowner entries) by default.

>

> Adrian, it's about adding yet some more osc commands without fixing those that

> are already existant. It's about bloating the code and copy pasting stuff

> around. Lastly, it's about commiting quick'n'dirty first, maybe communicate

> afterwards and if in doubt tell, it 'can be fixed later'. The latter is a tale

> told ever so often with regards to Build Service code.

>

> We should start thinking about how to fix this behavior now. The OBS may have

> been a pet-project by some, but now it is used by lots. If we want to keep it

> like this, we have to deliver quality stuff.

>

> And, if you insist we're an open project, we should act as one. Therefore, I

> deliberately keep this discussion public.

I completly agree that we need a refactoring.

However, I saw this more as a bug in first place which should be fixed ASAP to avoid

more invalid data in our servers. A peer review, like we do right now makes of course

sense.

I would not release this osc as stable release before talking with TuX (maybe better

via the mailing list the next time).

--

Adrian Schroeter

SUSE Linux Products GmbH

email: adrian@suse.de