Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> writes: > sorry, my mistake (another reason to move to different tooling.)
I very strongly disagree. We don't want to move to a tooling where material that is untested in its context gets pushed to the resource everybody is dependent on. We have set up the staging system for a reason, and the reason was to avoid a lot of friction that kept occuring in spite of best intentions (and tested reviews) on a semi-regular basis, typically every few months. This is completely orthogonal to the review and issue tracking system, so there is no point in blaming it. It's not that hard to make it a habit to never push to master but instead to staging (yes, there were the occasional accidents in the beginning as well as the rare misunderstanding that patches bypassing reviews because of triviality were fine to push directly to master), and I don't see that we should change that practice when moving to a different tooling system for reviews and issue tracking. You'll come to cherish the system when you first did a last-minute push of some completely harmless comment fix before leaving the Internet for some days and it broke the doc build. Possibly because of interaction with some other change someone else committed previously (like removing some unused macro/function which your patch then used). -- David Kastrup My replies have a tendency to cause friction. To help mitigating damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".
