Hi, On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Jonathan Costers <[email protected]> wrote: > My intention was to let people check out my changes for RIVER-301 > together with changes for RIVER-272, in an easy way. The patch I > attached to RIVER-301 was a bit too big to handle.
OK, cool. For such cases I propose that the branch is named after the issue in question, so this could have been skunk/RIVER-301 or skunk/RIVER-301-with-272. > In my opinion, we can commit these changes to the trunk too, but I > wanted to wait for reaction first. Personally I'd just commit directly to trunk as long as you're not explicitly breaking things for others. It's easy to revert changes in case problems are identified. PS. There was quite a bit of earlier discussion about having other committers review your changes before committing them. It's a good idea in general especially for more complex changes, but currently we have so few active committers, that I'd rather opt for the occasional mistakes than for halting development due to insufficient reviews. As an example see Mark's recent commit of a patch that waited six months in the issue tracker with nobody to review it. BR, Jukka Zitting
