Regarding the process discussion we had durring the stand-up. I think that we need to evaluate which changes require a RFC on a case-by-case basis. Some patches don't make sense as an RFC, for example compliation warnings, typos or formatting fix-ups. This is becuase these are trivial changes and requesting comments for a typo is pretty silly. Also, I don't know that any of the things we intend to go in <open-fcoe>/debug/ need to be validated.
That being said, functionality changes, features and non-trivial bug fixes (most of them) should follow the process- discussion on [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> and internally RFC to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> comments and replies patch is finalized mailed to fcoe-patches john tests and gives aproval patch mailed without RFC to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Rob pulls patches into repos, tests and mails to linux-scsi (when appropriate) Our goal is to put out the highest quality patches possible without overloading validation with trivial stuff. Thanks, //Rob _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
