[Development] Maintainer changes to review: QMutex optimisations

[Olivier Goffart]

On Saturday 25 August 2012 09:40:07 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Hello
> 
> While the discussion on the change to the commit policy is ongoing, I'd like
> to use some of the provisions I made there:
> 
> "a Maintainer may self-approve a change even if there are no +1s at all,
> provided that there are no -1s either, and provided that the Maintainer post
> to the mailing list asking about it and there are still no positive reviews
> after reasonable time."
> 
> The following changes belonging to topic branch "qmutex-optim" in qtbase are
> in need of reviewing:
> 	https://codereview.qt-project.org/32596
> 	https://codereview.qt-project.org/32597
> 	https://codereview.qt-project.org/32599
> 	https://codereview.qt-project.org/32600 (one +1 already)
> 	https://codereview.qt-project.org/32601
> 	https://codereview.qt-project.org/32611 (one +1 already)
> 
> The changes were first uploaded 2 weeks ago. The last update to the code was
> 9 days ago.
> 
> My two usual suspects for QMutex changes have been unavailable: Olivier has
> been MIA this week, so I suspect he's busy; Brad is away on parental leave.
> 
> If no +1 or +2 comes within reasonable time, I will self-approve the changes
> above.

I was in vacation last week without proper internet access.
Many of the changes already had a +2 from me before, but it went away as you 
rebased or refreshed the changes.  This show a problem with the gerrit tool 
and a major annoyance of the "topics" since it keeps you from already merging 
the stand alone patches that have already been approved.

Regarding the 2 patches which I have not approved: I personally think they are 
not giving anything usefull, just adding complexity. 
I think QBasicMutex and QMutex should be the same, only one is POD. And am not 
in favor of all the patches that goes against that.  But I realize that 
argument is not enough to veto or even put -1. 

-- 
Olivier

Woboq - Qt services and support - http://woboq.com