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_theory > > > The 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
pgpuQXBadBjAX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
