Hi Otavio, On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:00:06 -0200, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Vadim Bendebury (вб) > <vben...@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Otavio Salvador > > <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Vadim Bendebury (вб) > >> <vben...@google.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Otavio Salvador > >>> <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >>>> Once I saw this announcement I thought the same thing as Albert: how > >>>> custodians will have their trees there? > >>>> > >>> > >>> It is easy to create multiple projects, one per custodian. > >> > >> Yes but than Tom would need to send another branch for review or > >> directly push into master? > >> > > > > I am not sure what would be the best way of doing it, but the bottom > > line is that there still would be multiple git repos with chunks of > > code going upstream once accepted by custodians. > > > >> Besides, how people will 'transfer' one patch from one tree to > >> another? This will happen quite often as someone mistakenly sending a > >> patch for the wrong tree or custodians wanting the set to go together > >> in a single merge... > >> > > > > How is it handled today? Gerrit is after all just a means of keeping > > track of patches in a more efficient way, the rest could be similar to > > what is in use now, or enhanced using gerrit's features. > > Currently it is just reassigned in Patchwork; using multiple trees > will complicate this. How about one branch per custodian? At my previous job we had a couple branches, one per distinct "product". > Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Gerrit, I am just trying to bring up the > problems/issues we need to find solutions to be able to use/try it. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
