Richard Brooksby

> ...validate those cases given Git's constant violation of [POLA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment). Yep, Git astonished again. `git pull --rebase` discards merge commits, changing the topology of what is rebased and effectively fast-forwarding...

I'm 99% certain this is a mistake on my part -- trying to express the intention of adding one to a length (to hold a NUL). In any case the...

The patch suggested in [the Debian bug report](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1058778) looks fine to me. You're welcome to send us a pull request, @fstromback . It would help to exercise our code-review-with-external-people procedure!...

I'm not serious, but we could say `sizeof("")` :smile:

It's fun but it violates [rule.code.tricky](https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/blob/0ee19fffed94be25fe409f07f6ac9f61a007de50/procedure/rule.code.rst) exactly because you had to think about it :)

I propose that we do not integrate all the supporting rules, checklists, etc. before reviewing, merging, and adopting this procedure. I will bring in the most important, based on experience,...

Notes from test-run of the procedure with @UNAA008 and @thejayps, visible at https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/pull/117#issuecomment-1408484708 et seq. 1. [proc.review.plan](https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/blob/92ab8d819c2c3424963bc1172377afcfef6ea404/procedure/review.rst#52-review-planning) could include a step to ensure coverage of checking roles. For example, what...

> 1. [proc.review.plan](https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/blob/92ab8d819c2c3424963bc1172377afcfef6ea404/procedure/review.rst#52-review-planning) could include a step to ensure coverage of checking roles. Fixed in https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/pull/123/commits/29d7190ac1e41e5b0184bb5843c9d59cee3de1b1 > 2. During review, it's OK to add comments using the diff thing, ......

> 6. proc.review.pi.record is missing. Fixed in https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/pull/123/commits/da35acea891dd41180e717c7f40b865408f30c07 > 7. Where proc.review.pi.action says "improvement suggestion" it's talking about the results of brainstorm. Focus on that. Clarified in https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/pull/123/commits/da35acea891dd41180e717c7f40b865408f30c07 > 8....

The second test run of procedure at https://github.com/Ravenbrook/mps/pull/83#issuecomment-1411256195 went smoothly. No real problems found in the procedure, but a few good suggestions. Note for inclusion: Base kickoff, check,log, and brainstorm...