[Libreoffice] --enable-werror

[Michael Meeks]

Hi Bjoern,

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 19:47 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> This seems to me to be a bit overzealous. Invoking the impression that
> development on branches is oldschool and obsolete is just wrong --

	There is no problem with working on branches, indeed - I'm actively
working on one (on and off at least). The problem / groupthink issue
from OO.o-land came more from trying to coerce people through ever more
restrictive hoops to get their code included; that is what I'm against.

> Making no commits on master and every commit on a branch (like OOo did
> unless you had the godlike RelEng rights) was way wrong of course.

	Quite; but it was way worse than that in the past - the philosophy of
quality-through-inflicting-pain-and-slowness-on-developers was acute,
and I want no trace of it here. And yes, it's possible to get too
fearful of process ;-) but I think that's a very good default position
to make people work v. hard to introduce more burdens.

> Apply common sense. IMHO it could be quite healthy to have some more
> work done on (publicly visible) branches(*).

	Sadly common sense is often not so common :-) there is always a good
reason for adding every incremental barrier to entry, and removing them
is hard.

> That being said: A new warning is not a shooting offense IMHO (for
> reasons you stated quite eloquently). Breaking master on you own
> working platform however should induce a healthy amount of shame

	;-) well, I don't know how ashamed we should be, if it is caught
quickly and fixed that's fine with me, but completely agreed that
slowing other people down significantly is really not-good (TM). The
more tools and analytics we can deploy to try to stop that the better.

> Those 10-20 commits which are pushed to master as one. I dont think it
> would hurt anyone, if this branch is visible as it grows commits instead
> of being hidden on a local disc -- actually I think it would help.

	Ho hum; if the commits are for areas that are likely to be shared and
conflicting ( like fixing warnings ) I guess it might. Usually our
changes are far enough apart that it is not an issue - surely ? and it
seems unclear what the benefit vs. the pain pwrt. when re-synching
(around deleting old remote branches etc.) would be.

	All the best,

		Michael.

-- 
michael.meeks at suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot