Hi Bjoern, David
On 16.07.2012 00:53, David Ostrovsky wrote:
On 15.07.2012 12:29, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 08:02:37PM +0400, Ivan Timofeev wrote:
>I am trying to use the following workflow on master:
>
>1. git commit
>2. ./logerrit submit libreoffice-3-6
just fine till now.
>3. git push
Huh?! What is that for? it makes no sense for me to simultaneously
submit to gerrit and to push directly to master (and thus bypass gerrit).
Think about it: if your patch is going to be rejected or must be
adjusted what is going on with your changes that already in master?
Note 1: we are going to turn on the automatic patch verification
machinery (build + test). What is if your patch doesn't even compile,
introduces WaE, beaks unit tests?
It patches *.src files, our resource compiler builds these, so I am 100%
sure the patch doesn't break anything.
And I am quite sure it wont be rejected...
Since the gerrit team seems to be struck in the philosophical
question if a change is still the same on a different branch,
:)
But, as you pointed out gerrit can not handle it currently anyway (*),
why not to follow this simple workflow:
*Either* to push the patch directly to the master and send a mail to ML
with cgit link and ask for review -- my i add not recommended here? ;-) --,
*or* to submit it only to gerrit (master or specific branch), wait for
verification and once approved and merged,
push it to all other branches
It is inconsistent, I mean if master is free-pushable (the only
requirement is: no build breaks), it must remain so, regardless of the
workflow a whimmy developer decided to use at the moment.
Regards,
Ivan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
