On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 14:20 -0700, Love, Robert W wrote: > 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. > This was an internal mail that I accidentally sent externally. It basically describes our patch development process and has nothing to do with this list or the open-fcoe.org/patchwork site. Sorry for the confusion.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
