Hoss wrote:
> (or in short: we're moving more towards a *true* commit and review
model)
I'm curious as to what you think are the practical implications are
for committers for this model? Do you imagine a change in the
workflow whereby we commit and then review or do we stick to the
patch approach as committers (contributors will always submit
patches)? It has always been a gray area, where we all kind of know
what we can commit w/o creating patches for versus what we should put
up patches for. Just curious, I'm working on the payloads stuff and
I know that as long as it compiles, it isn't going to break anything,
so in some sense I could commit b/c I know it would make it easier
for Michael B. and others to update and review w/o going through the
patch process. On the other hand, the patch approach makes you take
one extra good look at what you are doing.
What do others think?
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
