[oe] Switching SCM to git and commit/review policy

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Am Montag 16 Juni 2008 16:17:30 schrieb Rolf Leggewie:
> Sounds good to me, at least the most realistic proposal I saw so far.
> Because it deals better with some short-comings in the "have every patch
> touched by two devs"
>
> 1) we already have a *HUGE* backlog of patches in our bug tracker[1].
>    This will only grow bigger if we require even more human intervention
> 2) it does not treat every patch the same, differentiation is needed
>    IMHO, as well as efficiency and (semi)-automatic processes
>
> Basically, I am fine with "commit to dev, test out, fix regressions if
> present".  OTOH, "prevent regressions up front by reviewing everything"
> will slow down .dev to a crawl, I am afraid.  Don't we have stable for
> that very reason (less volatile code) and with exactly the "2 ACKs per
> commit"-policy?   I am all for review for big changes and where
> efficiently possibly, but I fail to see the value of it for example for
> the type of work that I often do (the busy-work that Cliff Brake so
> eloquently described on June 13th).
>
> With the huge number of open bugs and things that need fixing which have
> been untouched for ages, I am not convinced that slowing things down
> even further is a step in the right direction.

I have to agree here. Rather than becoming overbeaurocratic I'd like us to use 
the less painful branching and merging to implement changes to critical 
sections in the metadata.

-- 
:M: