On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, David Lamparter wrote:
> so, having taked to Donald, I believe I'm supposed to do /8. I've
> suggested taking the cumulus patchset whole and pack the entire thing
> on
> 8/proposed, have people test and fix issues on top, and then merge it.
>
> Is that reasonable?
That doesn't work for me.
I've already done a review of that tree for Donald.
Also, there's lots of other stuff waiting too. E.g., NHRP, the
link-attributes stuff from Orange, and no doubt more in patchwork.
And, the key thing really is to start following a process that is
reasonably objective and fair to everyone. And optimise it over time to
get the right balance between flexibility, quality and speed.
So, can we start from the process that has been followed for the last 7
integration rounds, and tweak that?
Note: You can change the process to /allow/ taking someone's tree and
using that as the next integration round (or whatever), but change the
process /separately/ from the actual integration. Otherwise we're back
to ad-hoc, opaque ways of getting stuff integrated that have caused
grumbles in the past.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
God shows his contempt for wealth by the kind of person he selects to
receive it.
-- Austin O'Malley
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
