Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Current process is like: "dumping code and if people are not around at the > time to echo, it will stay there forever, and someone else can later clean up > the mess when bugs start to appear". > > If that's what you prefer....
i thought we are doing reasonably fine. if there are no people to give review and echo at the time the development occurs you have to trust the people you gave commit access. > Are you saying that if someone asks you to change this this and that, you > want to be able to not do it and still have your code in the next release ? yes, like it is now. if someone knows his piece of code he should be able to use his style. if someone else does not agree he can raise the point on dev list and convince him or other devs (in which case they become the decisive power). not that we designate one special maintainer position which will have stronger voice based on this position, like it is in branch. the exception is when we are close to release. > So you will let future developers figure out why you coded something in this > way, rather than that someone politely asks you to comment and describe what please... i can't remember cases around when devs around ignored such polite requests. > It's not like asking the maintainer for "permission". it's more like "if > there are no serious comments on a patch, if there are no bugs introduced and > if it is understandable to others", it will automatically get merged into > trunk-stable after some period of testing. thanks for explanation. > > > > no i can just stay in small-bugfixes branch, which will be automatically > > > > merged once a day. > > > > > > Such a branch is useless. > > > > why? > > > Because in this way, it has no advantages to use branches at all. i just propose that its not compulsory to use (new) branch for each small thingie. bigger things will have their branch and that would be the advantage you deny. pavel
