My bad (mostly) I made quite a lot of PR to get some review before commiting to the master, and did not follow up in a timely manner.
I closed two obsoletes PR today. #245 should be ready for prime time. #227 too unless George has an objection. I asked Jeff to review #232 and #228 because they are large and/or objectionable changes. I asked George to review #262 since it might require some other changes. #261 is ready for prime time assuming this is the way we agree to go. If you think i should post patches/links to my branches to the devel mailing list rather than issuing PR, or i should name my branches rfc/something, then just let me know. Cheers, Gilles "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: >On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Ralph Castain <rhc.open...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree - I sent the note because I see people doing things a bit >> differently than expected. I have no issue with PRs for things where people >> want extra eyes on something before committing, or as part of an RFC. Just >> want to ensure folks aren’t letting them languish expecting some kind of >> gatekeeper to merge them…as that will never happen. > >+1 > >The wiki actually specifically mentions this use case (PR's against master for >RFCs and extra eyes). But it would be good to clarify that there is no >gatekeeper for these PRs like there is in ompi-release. > >-- >Jeff Squyres >jsquy...@cisco.com >For corporate legal information go to: >http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > >_______________________________________________ >devel mailing list >de...@open-mpi.org >Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >Link to this post: >http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16263.php
