Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index



On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 08:54 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Ah, that's very different. So essentially people that now have
immediate gratification^W commit rights would "go back" to "one day
delay"?

        Nah - as Bjoern says this is only for non-trivial patches that the
reviewer is not confident about and that would prolly benefit from a day
of delay to allow a specialist in the given area to jump in and do the
work; clearly interacting / forwarding to the right person etc. is a
good idea here.

something to the effect: "one day waiting period is a lot for eager
new contributors". I think I thought this was about requests to apply
a commit *already* in master to stable branch.

        Heh ;-) it's about the above subset of patches that some are worried
about going into master without enough review.

        Lets see how the gerrit flow helps as/when it comes. What I hated wrt.
the CWS process was it's huge amount of round-trips. If there is a
sausage machine that (as a committer) I can choose to push to, that
after building on <n> platforms auto-pushes that to master, I'd be dead
pleased. It means I can do more risky cross-platform changes more
quickly, and queue them up back to back - knowing I'm not going to bust
other people's builds ;-)

        Of course, if we start finding new contributors' patches taking much
longer to merge, we should re-visit ;-) IIRC we decided to re-discuss
this at a later date.

        HTH,

                Michael.

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


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.