On Tuesday 20 November 2007, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:40:26PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > OK, can we decide on what should be (not) allowed, preferably as regexp
> > for the diff?
>
> Please don't over-engineer this. It's fine to just flame the committer
> who did a trivial commit without it being really trivial (yeah, I know,
> I'm guilty of this sometimes too).
>
> In the worst case, if the commit really _breaks_ something or is
> wrong and there's opposition, we can just revert it (which I did
> in the past, too, with one of my "trivial" fixes).
> > Checking for added files in the commit hook is easy. [...]
> Overkill, IMO. Just flame whoever did crap, in the worst case we revert
> the patch.
Seconded. A "trivial" patch must _never_ break anything. Leave that basically
to each committer's judgement. If it does break something, flame at will; we
all make mistakes, but the blame must hurt ;-) In the long run, someone
incapable of forseeing such breakage should not retain commit rights, IMHO.
Besides that, do we agree that at least adding a new function or macro is
non-trivial (by definition, if you like)? This would also cover refactoring
and the design of new subsystems and would allow to split out a new file from
an existing big one OTOH.
Torsten
--
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios@linuxbios.org
http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
