Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Angus, that seems like a perfect plan to me. I am going to follow this
| very logic from now on.
But if you continue to commit pathces that does several things at
once, you have to prepare for battle.
(This is part of the responsibility part of the process Angus and
Asger proposes.)
And... it is better to send a patch (a patch with one part of a
cleanup, one logical change etc.) for review to the list, saying that
this will be committed in a short while "unless I get objections"
instead of barging on and just commiting. ("How to loose commit
privileges in 10 minutes 101.")
| FYI, the main reason why my patches contained more that one "logical
| change" is that I was bitten more than once by the lengthy review
| process and I thought that Lars opinion was "gospel".
But you should still consider my opinons as strong guidelines.
| Anyway, I think it's very good that the commit and review process is
| now agreed by everyone. It was a very interesting debate to read :-)
If you noticed... both what Asger said, and what Angus said, is close
to how we have worked for the last years... and not really different
from what I am saying.
| So, many thanks to all and please let me the honor to put a final dot
| at this discussion:
|
| dot.
Hmm... I never read mails from bottom up...
--
Lgb
