>
> Deferring huge amount of commits gives rebase/redo hell. That's the
> biggest impact and the order in which these deferred commits are then
> actually committed can make it more painful or less painful depending on
> the commit. And that in turn will have to then wait for each contributor
> to
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Michael Burman
wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 07:38 PM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote:
>
>> this point? Also, if we tell someone that their contribution will be
>> reviewed and committed later after 4.0-beta, how is that actually making
>> a difference for that person, compar
On 07/12/2018 07:38 PM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote:
this point? Also, if we tell someone that their contribution will be
reviewed and committed later after 4.0-beta, how is that actually making
a difference for that person, compared to committing it now for a 4.x
version. It may be satisfying to ge
people from contributing in a
“scratch an itch” way. It’s just what we agreed on how to coordinate our
efforts and what kind of patches to accept for individual releases. So
if it’s fine to tell people that we’re not able to accept patches for
any version they are already running, why should we not be
