On 9/9/2014 9:54 AM, Dragos Carp wrote:
Are you satisfied with the current process? Let me summarize some important drawbacks of the current workflow: 1. No clear defined deadline for preparing a merge-able PR. 2. Unorganized PR merge campaigns. The people merging the PR are doing a great job, but they do this triggered by arbitrary events: too many open PRs, a cool new PR appears, somebody poke them on forum, or simply have some time for this kind of work. 3. Somehow arbitrary merge criteria. Having a defined merge window, when some people do just PR merges, will implicitly produce more predictable and uniform acceptance criteria. 4. Lack of focus during test phase. Maybe this is the main reason for the v2.066 regressions. Some people keep merging new PRs, before the old ones are proven done during the test phase. Even Walter was annoyed a couple of times by the multitude of versions that the people are simultaneously working on. 5. Rotting old PRs. The "merge window" phase would be a defined recurrent occasion to review and decide about those.
Most of that is unavoidable without salaried devs on it. D is 100% volunteer, deadlines and such aren't realistically feasible.
