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.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
