David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > >>>> Han-Wen has recently pushed a bunch of changes directly to >>>> Rietveld, most of them quite uncontroversial. I assume that this >>>> is as good as an e-mail :-) >>>> >>>> I thus suggest that after his patches have been reviewed, >>> >>> How are they going to get reviewed when there is nothing pointing to >>> them? How would anyone including Han-Wen know when the review phase >>> ends? >> >> Well, as has been pointed out, pull requests at github don't have >> 'review phases', and what we have here is comparable IMHO. >> >> One developer (or maybe two, just to be sure) acknowledges the patch, >> and that's it. Kind of a highway solution for trivial things. > > Trivial things from a developer with push access can be just pushed. > Complex or otherwise contential things warrant a chance for developers > to take a look at it. "Half a chance" seems an unnecessary > complication.
At any rate: we haven't had a protocol for patches not going through the regular process. Maybe we should use the Signed-off-by: convention for such patches, including the original submitter and the LGTM votes? It's probably mostly psychological, but it suggests a bit of accountability/responsibility. -- David Kastrup
