On 21.11.2007 00:30, Torsten Duwe wrote: > 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? >>> >> >>> 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. >
Removing commit rights of a person is surely a drastic measure, and the only one that works in case we don't enforce sane behaviour in the commit hooks. If I had my commit rights revoked, I'd probably feel offended very much. > 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. > By that logic, adding a new file is non-trivial as well. Nice. The conditions above surely can be checked in a commit hook. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
