On 9 March 2016 at 19:34, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:13 +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> I understand, thank you. Especially your "directly commit to master" >> analogy is good. Pulling replaces your detailed personal review with the >> trusted identity of the pull requestor -- you trust that the commits on >> the requestor's branch are already sufficiently reviewed. > > Note that it doesn't *have* to. And again, there's nothing special > about email vs. pull requests here. > > Pater is saying that he *chooses* not to bother reviewing what he pulls > in via pull requests, and *that's* why it's equivalent to direct commit > access. > > I could just as well say that *I* choose to hold my nose and look the > other way while running 'git am', and thus *patches* would be > equivalent to direct commit access. > > I won't tell Peter that his behaviour is wrong. I'll only say that > other projects don't have to do the same thing.
Yes; I'm describing QEMU's workflow, not trying to present it as the One True Way of doing things. I would quibble with the "not to bother" phrasing, though -- if I reviewed everything going into master this would not scale and I would very quickly burn out and go spend my time studying Japanese instead. The pullreqs-from- submaintainers setup is specifically intended to spread that review and test workload out to a wider circle of people (who also have local-subject-area expertise which I don't have). That I don't review the patches flowing into master via the pulls I merge is a feature of this workflow, not a bug. thanks -- PMM
