Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
- Response time to "you broke the master"-emails by tinderboxes are way too low -- the default assumption seems to be: somebody else broke the master. This is having further implications as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theoryThe onegit conversion should help a bit with that.
and
Another route is the 'sub-system maintainer' route. where patch and commit are channeled to sub-system maintainer that regularly but in a controlled fashion push batch of commits to the 'official' master. For instance 'calc'-centric patch could transit via a tree managed by kohei, he would make sure that he tree is stable (via builtbot among other tings) and weekly - for instance - would merge his tree into the 'official' master.
I think I like that plan much better. The original proposal is really heavy-weight, and relies on people being able to fix the unreviewed branch in time, no matter how broken it is. Also, it unnecessarily requires syncing of all work, on certain days.
- Prevent patches to get lost in space on the ML. - Prevent patches to hang in a "needs one more review" cycle.
Both are non-issues in my mind. The former happens very, very seldomly, the latter is not solved by Björn's proposal - since it's about release branches. Cheers, -- Thorsten
Attachment:
pgpnfpXoxx2pW.pgp
Description: PGP signature