attn folk doing reviews.

[Martin Pool]

On 23 Jan 2006, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> Two things... what do you think of some review guidelines as an aid to
> memory on the wiki ? I think the peer review thing is working well, but
> that will make it clear to folk submitting code what we are looking for.

There are already some in the HACKING file.  More guidelines would be
good.  Either place is OK, but preferably it'll not be spread across
both.  I'd slightly prefer to add more detail there and post an excerpt
with pointer to the wiki.

> Secondly, I've noticed a couple of times though is that new methods are
> not getting @needs_read_lock or @needs_write_lock decorators. Generally
> speaking I think any method in the WorkingTree, Branch and Repository
> classes will need such a decorator *unless* its 
>  * a trivial wrapper. Note that a wrapper/convenience function that
> mutates anything will almost certainly need needs_write_lock.
>  * unrelated to the persistent storage of the object.
> 
> I.e. most recently the fileid_involved methods - they read the inventory
> weave, and they dont take out a transaction themselves, and neither does
> self._get_inventory_weave().

Perhaps needing these decorators on almost all methods suggests an
underlying problem?  Perhaps we should reconsider having the lock held
for the lifetime of the object?

-- 
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060123/28613e83/attachment.pgp