OK, per the discussion, I will add a commit-queue=? flag for Adam's testing. If we like it, we can keep it. If not, we can kill it. -eric
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:13 PM, David Kilzer<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Either we should change the review process to only set the review+ flag >>> if the patch is ready to go with zero modifications, or we should use the >>> commit+ flag to signify that. >>> >>> I could go either way on this. I don't like the idea of setting review- >>> flags for trivial fixes that could be landed with minor modifications. On >>> the other hand, being able to commit patches directly from >>> bugs.webkit.org with bugzilla-tool is really handy. >>> >> >> The other factor is that some committers might not want the >> commit-queue script to land their changes. In those cases, their >> patches would get an r+ but never get a commit+. (Personally, I don't >> mind if other people want to land may changes, but I can see how it >> might disrupt other's workflow. >> > > I think the flag state should be "commit?" for requesting a commit, and > "commit+" for a committed patch, to match how we use the review flag. That > way, either the patch submitter or anyone else who notices the patch needs > committing and wasn't submitted by a committer can flag it, and the state > when the patch is landed can be clear. > > Regards, > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
