On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 17:05 -0400, David Simcha wrote: > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I'm a bit divided on it. Andrei and Lars were pushing for > _all_ check-ins to > be reviewed. Part of me thinks that that's overkill and yet > there have been > times that other developers have caught stuff that I likely > wouldn't have even > with smaller changes. > > It does seem like overkill to require a pull request for > smaller changes, > particularly if they really don't look like they'd cause a > problem, but at the > same time, the extra eyes can be really valuable, even when > you don't expect > it. > > The truly minor, non-code stuff - such as updating the > changelog - shouldn't > need a pull request, but at this point, I'm inclined to agree > with Andrei and > Lars that all (or at least very nearly all) code changes > should go through > pull requests. > > Actually, one of my big concerns with using pull requests is that I > want near-instant feedback from the auto tester to make sure my stuff > works on all platforms. It's frustrating to have to wait an > indeterminate amount of time for such feedback.
One option would be to commit all changes to a "testing" branch and have the auto tester run off that. Then, every once in a while, Andrei (or someone else) can merge the testing branch with master, provided the auto tester has succeeded for all platforms. -Lars _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
