I'll merge my stuff to the trunk in a couple of hours. Thanks for your advice!
Best Jonathan Op vrijdag 17-04-2009 om 14:32 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jukka Zitting: > 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
