David Powell wrote:
From various meetings with various people[1], it seems like we should
continue with the current putback policy. Stated explicitly:
There will be no change in # of changesets/changegroup, or # of
bugs/changeset. Or more descriptively:
1) There will be no restriction on number of changesets fixed per
changegroup. You can address as many changesets in a putback as you like.
2) While there will be no restriction on number of bugs fixed per
changeset, it would behoove you (and whoever looks at the SCM history
after you) if bugs were separated out as much as possible. i.e.: if you
are fixing bugs which are completely independent and easily-separable,
please do so in separate changesets. If fixes for bugs are intertwined,
(i.e.: you are putting back a project which, in turn, fixes 9 other bugs
or something) then they may be combined into one changeset.
Does that seem reasonable?
It's probably worth making one more (implied and frequently assumed)
thing explicit:
3) There should only be one changeset per bug.
Dave
Agreed.
(though it took me a while to parse that sentence. my mind couldn't
wrap itself around the logic that:
one bug per changeset != one changeset per bug
once i had some coffee, i came to my senses)
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
