On Feb 20, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: >> Now that Carol has gotten the trunk populated, I was wondering if we need to >> wait until the Mustella tests are in before committing to trunk? > Just as an aside I've selected those issues as it was something that could be > easily verified without Mustella (ie no real framework code changes). I'm not > sure that Mustella would actually be able to test those patches in any > meaningful way. Until we get our hands on it hard to say.
Yeah I noticed that the issues you worked on were locale issues/enhancements. Your statement makes sense to me regarding verifiable vs. non-verifiable issues. I guess I was just wanting to start a general discussion around committing, and I think whether we have one route to commit vs. multiple it would be nice to get those routes fleshed out so we can document them somewhere. > >> On another note, have we decided on a standard process for committing to >> trunk? > Well for lower risk smaller changes I'm all for CTR, for larger higher risk > changes RTC may be more suitable. I'm sure anyone who's a committers can use > their judgment on a case by case basis? This makes sense too. If we get the commit processes documented I think that it would be just fine to have a couple paths to trunk. (Low risk/high risk) Thanks for the input!
