> On 22 Mar 2016, at 18:23, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > A branch sounds fine, but how are we going to get 3 +1's to merge it? If > it's hard to find one reviewer, seems even harder to find two.
Given that only one +1 is needed to merge a non-branch patch, he could in theory convert the entire branch into a single .patch for review. Not that I'd encourage that, just observing that its possible > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Allen Wittenauer < > allenwittena...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >> >>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 10:49 AM, larry mccay <larry.mc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> That sounds like a reasonable approach and valid use of branches to me. >>> >>> Perhaps a set of functional tests could be provided/identified that would >>> help the review process by showing backward compatibility along with new >>> extensions for things like dynamic commands? >>> >> >> This is going into trunk, so no need for backward compatibility. >>
