[Box Backup-dev] Reviewing code

[Martin Ebourne]

Charles Lecklider <boxbackup@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 =20
of code review. You've somewhat taken my comment and gone down a whole =20
different road!

While your points are all reasonable mostly Chris and now Nick are =20
working hard to resolve almost all of your issues. Although there is =20
no "official" win32 branch it is clear from reading that list that the =20
chris/general branch is where Chris has been doing all his windows =20
development. I'm sure he wouldn't mind you taking that and fixing it =20
so it compiles on VC, and I'm sure he'd be happy to commit any changes =20
you made. Chris has stated his reasons why he won't use VC himself and =20
they seem sound to me. He's also stated he's happy to accept other's =20
work on VC so he's clearly open minded about it.

Obviously your life will be a lot easier if you wait until all of the =20
windows stuff is committed to trunk, and we're all putting effort into =20
seeing that happen because that will benefit everyone. Until the =20
windows code is merged further work on the unix side would be =20
inconvenient.

Cheers,

Martin.