Am Mittwoch 02 Dezember 2009 09:54:04 schrieb Alexander Graf: > > > > Experience has shown that it doesn't work like that. It happens the > > person writing the patches never provides a fix, and the committer > > receives the complains, and in fine fixes the commit. > > Then revert the patch. I also think we need to distinguish subsystems here. Full ack on this - we have git, we can always revert without problem.
Make a policy like: at least another pair of eyes has to ack/sign-off and then lets commit it. If a breakage occurs -> just revert, ppl will act. > > So when you have something really core-y - like the main loop - then of > course you go through a lot of review and try to get a lot of people > involved, so it doesn't break. > > On the other hand if you have a subsystem that is completely separate - like > cris - you don't care if it's broken. If it is for > 24 hours, exclude it > from the default build list. If you see that one person breaks stuff all > along, tighten the restrictions for that person. But that doesn't mean all > subsystems need a review as thorough as the core code. > > In fact, it is a _lot_ easier to get code into Linux than it is to get it > into Qemu. That's just plain wrong. FWIW this is also my impression - IMHO we should adapt a similar process. my 0.02 € ... best, Jan-Simon