(Desperate) Plea for multi-person code review

Mike Perry mikeperry at fscked.org
Mon Feb 15 20:36:49 UTC 2010

Thus spake Nick Mathewson (nickm at freehaven.net):

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Mike Perry <mikeperry at fscked.org> wrote:
> > I've now rebased, split, and squashed all the commits into 8
> > logically distinct patches in mikeperry/consensus-bw-weights4.
> > Should be easier to review for those who prefer to look at things
> > one commit at a time.
> >
> Ouch.  This is great for people who want to read your patch series de
> novo, and it's good for clarity once we merge it into Tor's main
> history, but it makes stuff harder for people who've been reviewing
> the old patch series unless you say something like, "BTW, commit X in
> consensus-bw-weights4 corresponds to exactly the same changes as you
> had looked at up until now in consesus-bw-weights3, just cleaned up a
> little."

Ah yes, the branches should be equivalent and have and empty diff
between them after you rebase both to the latest origin/master (unless
I forgot a push?), but I had commited one or two changes to
consensus-bw-weights3 since you reviewed it. You can do a git fetch of
course to see the new diffs in consesus-bw-weights3. Not sure where
you left off, but the new commits are just the fixes for your code
review and the additional fix to always weight by bandwidth, as I
mentioned on or-talk.

Mike Perry
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20100215/f1eb032d/attachment.pgp>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list