On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:30:00PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:06:49PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 03:14:13PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> >> > [snip] >> >> > >> >> >> What I think it'd be possible to get working would be: >> >> >> >> >> >> Custodians would have Submit rights >> >> >> Custodians would have +2 review rights >> >> >> "Normal" people would have +1 review rights >> >> >> CI system could have the +1 for verified >> >> >> Single tree >> >> >> >> >> >> So essentially custodians could be assigned using some keyword, file >> >> >> matching and other clever heuristics, but it'd give freedom for them >> >> >> to 'drop' their review need or add someone else. Once they submit a >> >> >> change it goes straight to 'master' branch. >> >> >> >> >> >> This easy the merging of stuff but this ends with the sub-trees. >> >> > >> >> > This sounds like a first good step to me. It's important that things >> >> > get reviewed and everyone seems to be able to see the difference between >> >> > "this is a small change to $subsystem driver for $soc, $soc custodian >> >> > can just push it" and "this is a big change, $subsystem custodian should >> >> > speak up too". But I still want a final say on when things are able to >> >> > be merged into master >> >> >> >> In this case, you could be the only one with 'submit' rights. So >> >> everything would be just 'awaiting' for submit. >> > >> > And custodian should still be able to easily pull together a list of >> > stuff they're happy with, change sets I guess? >> >> You can pull the 'patchsets' but the workflow I often see is that when >> the changes are approved they go to 'master' right away. >> >> The main drawback I see is that the 'custodian' gets the power to >> merge stuff direct in master. At same time, we get a more 'complete' >> master and this avoids subsystems being tested late in the release >> cycle. >> >> I think it radically change the workflow but I've been using it for a >> while in internal projects, customers and partners and it works quite >> well. > > So long as we can plug a reasonable mount of CI in, this might not be > too bad, honestly. The big problems I find with custodian PRs are "oh, > when I threw this through the everything-matrix, $board broke that you > didn't try".
In fact I think every commit could be 'forced' to have the 'Verified' vote set by the CI. So we couldn't push anything which fail. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
