[zeromq-dev] C++ assertion failed with Java client

[john skaller]

On 04/02/2012, at 4:37 AM, AJ Lewis wrote:
> 
> Definitely - just concerned that this model continues.  Some of the talk
> about taking all patches blindly and waiting for other contributers to
> revert them makes me nervous. 

The Benevolent Dictator has set strict standards: coding style,
rules for process. 

Dictator doesn't want to be bogged down vetting patches.
As one of my game playing friends said to me:
"I don't want to be a foot soldier, I want to be a General" :)

Have you heard of QA? I mean ISO Quality Control Standards.
You probably know, these quality control measures involve:

(a) a statement of commitment to quality
(b) strict adherence to monitoring operations

.. but have NOTHING to say about actual product quality.

The idea is simply that there are ways to measure quality
and they're applied, and there are ways to find out what caused
a problem, no matter how it is discovered, and fix it.
It's all about identification and tracking, as a tool for implementing
the quality commitment.

Here, Git does a lot of this work. Opening up the code base for
patches should *increase* quality because it reduces the feedback
time for contributions. Make a patch quicker .. and have people checking
it out quicker too.

IMHO the really big hole in he current setup is the lack of a substantial
test base: regression tests, unit tests, integration tests,  performance
measurements.

So I would stop feeling nervous about vetting of patches .. and start
feeling nervous about the lack of test code :)

--
john skaller
skaller at users.sourceforge.net