Colin Campbell <c...@shaw.ca> writes: > A couple of points for clarity, then: > > Procedurally, I gather that the patch meister doesn't really care > whether a patch is on /staging or /master, only that Patchy has > checked it, and that there are no howls of protest in the discussion > on Rietveld or the various lists, before marking it for countdown, and > eventually for pushing. However, the first point above is ambiguous: > if a patch only gets to staging by way of a countdown, then wanting it > pushed immediately is moot. If, on the other hand, the immediate push > is the criterion, then the countdown is moot. I had the impression > that staging was for potentially disruptive patches, those which might > cause large-scale weeping and wailing, and so should go into a sort of > extra sanity check before going onto master. > > Given that the Bug Squad verify patches with current GUB, can we label > patches which are fixed in /staging differently from those which are > fixed in GUB, so that a patch marked "fixed" is assumed *not* to be in > the GUB build? This might be a developer error, simply forgetting to > update the tag, but it could also mean the patch is not yet in the > publicly available rele4ase.
If stuff goes through staging always, it saves the master meister the hassle of having to rebase staging on master before being able to push. I guess we are still in the process of finding out best policies. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
