Alan Coopersmith writes:
> There did seem to be a few more complaints in this release cycle about
> patches/pulls just getting lost though - I had at least one that didn't
> make it in, though Peter has pulled to his -next branch, and I saw others
> saying theirs were missed too. Was there a pr
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:58:15AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Peter Hutterer writes:
>
> > This has worked reasonably well since we started for server 1.8. If
> > nothing else, it has made git master a lot more reliable. However, Keith
> > is the bottleneck to get anything into master. The d
On 02/28/13 01:58 AM, Keith Packard wrote:
> Peter Hutterer writes:
>
>> This has worked reasonably well since we started for server 1.8. If
>> nothing else, it has made git master a lot more reliable. However, Keith
>> is the bottleneck to get anything into master. The delay to get a pull
>>
Peter Hutterer writes:
> This has worked reasonably well since we started for server 1.8. If
> nothing else, it has made git master a lot more reliable. However, Keith
> is the bottleneck to get anything into master. The delay to get a pull
> request merged has been quite random, depending on
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:06:07AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> * leave the current window of 3/2/1-ish months for the different
> devel stages
> * leave the requirement for a reviewed-by
> * one RM, calling the shots for when releases are made and generally
> being the reviewer of last resort an
airlied brought this up in another thread [1], but I think this warrants
a separate, more visible topic.
The current xserver development process can be summarised as:
* patches must be on the list and get a reviewed-by
* pull request to Keith [2] (or direct CC)
* Keith is the only one to push to
