| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 16/01/14 18:24, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote: |
| 5 |
> So, how would this work with emails to this list, exactly? An |
| 6 |
> email should be sent any time one of those fields is changed? |
| 7 |
That's not necessary, in my opinion. We already send emails, "looks OK |
| 8 |
to me" and similar. And most patches don't really need more than one |
| 9 |
review and an ACK by the lead. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Do you have a more detailed plan on how would this work? |
| 12 |
Not really. We're small enough to do this organically and on a |
| 13 |
per-case basis. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But basically, if someone authors a non-trivial patch, that person |
| 16 |
should *never* push themselves. Whoever reviews it should push it, |
| 17 |
adding the Reviewed-by field. The reviewer should also get an ACK by |
| 18 |
the team lead (via IRC or whatever) and add that to the commit before |
| 19 |
pushing. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In a bigger project (or with a team lead with a lot of free time...), |
| 22 |
I would argue that the reviewer should send the new commit, with the |
| 23 |
Reviewed-by field added, to the team lead, which then adds the |
| 24 |
Acked-by field themselves, before pushing. I'm not convinced the |
| 25 |
benefits of this extra step outweighs the drawback in the overhead of |
| 26 |
this small community of ours. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- -- |
| 29 |
Alexander |
| 30 |
alexander@××××××.net |
| 31 |
http://plaimi.net/~alexander |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlLYGpkACgkQRtClrXBQc7WA4AEAmghIHMkNxiqJ79CONZzs/k/u |
| 37 |
t0QoASddzlSruejiVaQA+QFOdbgMaA59hf9DInPAgpG7Kc6fbFENgkZn4jEY9NAq |
| 38 |
=CrCK |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives