In between when I saw the edit and when I saw this email, I re-edited. Please fell free to re-edit again. Mostly I didn't want "Publish" to sound like it was going to be part of the workflow, but I also made drafts the second suggestion, because I would expect gerrit newbies to publish there too often and then disappear when nobody reviews their code.
New users misunderstanding and abusing refs/for/master is rare. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Philip Zeyliger <phi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Daniel Hecht <dhe...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Add this info to > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IMPALA/ > > Using+Gerrit+to+submit+and+review+patches > > if not already there? > > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > I updated > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IMPALA/ > Using+Gerrit+to+submit+and+review+patches#UsingGerrittosubmitandreviewpa > tches-Sendingapatchforreview.1 > to basically recommend the draft workflow over the "refs/for" workflow. I > think it's a good idea for new contributors to review their code reviews > first and explicitly hit publish. Experienced contributors will get > sufficiently acquainted with Gerrit over time. > > -- Philip >
