On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 06:20:00PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> does it make sense for patches to be only sent to simon and then we can
> be notified by the cvs list? it is hard to track what people are doing
> when some patches are in and others are rejected, etc.
NO! Sorry, but I firstly want people to be able to peer-review patches because
if I am held up testing everything, I'll never be able to process the amount
of patches we're seeing. I want to keep development flowing fairly quickly and
smoothly, which means I'm applying most patches that float past me so long as
I'm sure that they don't cause any *conceptual* breakage somewhere down the
line. I'm not always, unfortunately, testing for actual *code* breakage.
So for instance, I was happy to throw in Brian Wheeler's new assembler because
it was a big step forward, it allowed for expansion and changes like that keep
development ticking over nicely - in spite of the fact that it hadn't been
heavily tested.
That's not to say I'm not doing any QC at all; I am continually checking over
stuff and making sure it works out. And if I don't like the look of a patch,
I'll wait until someone else comments on it. This is exactly why I want
patches to go to the list.
On the other hand, it's sometimes hard for me to pick out patches in amongst
the messages, especially if people send multiple versions of the same patch.
So maybe the best thing would be for people to send patches to the list and
Cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll put a filter on and have all the patches
show up in a different mailbox, so I can easily see which I have and haven't
applied.
This will get more interesting when our new committers get on line.
Simon
