The current contributing docs for IGT state:

  There is no formal review requirement and regular contributors with
  commit access can push patches right after submitting them to the
  mailing lists. But invasive changes, new helper libraries and
  contributions from newcomers should go through a proper review to
  ensure overall consistency in the codebase.

While not requiring reviews or acks has definitely increased the
speed of development, I feel the time for slowing down a bit has

At the very least I would like to see all commits have a visit to the
mailing list before pushing, as the current docs already ask for. The
"right after" part would be changed to a $period of quarantine, maybe
24 hours?

As for requiring reviews or acks before pushing, how do the developers
at large feel about that? Different rules for different parts of IGT?
(Benchmarks, tools, tests, CI test sets, lib....)

The goal with this discussion is to reach a suitable tradeoff between
stability from CI point of view and fruitful use of programmer time.

Petri Latvala
Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to