On Sunday 01 November 2009 11:59, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 03:02 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > This wastes your time. Maybe it makes sense to allow > > trivial fixes to be applied without going through > > this process? > > What are your suggestions on how would you track what, from where and > WHY gets into master, who reviewed the code before submission and > checked that it builds / does not introduce regressions then?
For example, you can have a rule that committer is responsible for that. If you have a few people in your team whom you trust that they are organized enough to always do a compile test and a basic run test before committing, then they may be entrusted in "fast-forwarding" trivial stuff. > I agree that it takes time, but it does not *waste* time, because > afterward it makes much easier to figure out how and when a particular > regression or bug was introduced. > > You think that your patch is trivial, but we have a record of one-liners > introducing very weird and hard to find regressions. Sometimes it takes > hours of bisecting to figure out what broke a particular feature... Yep, happens all the time. > Therefore, if you want to spare us some time, you are asked to create a > ticket in the tracker and attach your patches there, so that we won't > have to do it for you. Noted. _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel