On 4 Nov 2014, at 18:07, Glyph <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:38 AM, HawkOwl <hawk...@atleastfornow.net> wrote: >> >>> • Can please we do reviews of the fixes to the regressions as if they >>> were landing on trunk, and not have this revert re-open the need to review >>> the entire (rather large) change? >> >> How are we going to manage this? Do we need an “alternate” branch, which >> consists of #6750 + all the regression fixes, and the “review” is making >> sure that all of the known regressions are fixed? Or do we remerge it as a >> “private” API, maybe, so that we can still fit it mostly into our dev >> process? Or do we do a tubes and just spin it off into another thing of its >> own, then merge it when it’s finished? I’m not sure. > > My idea would be to have a new 6750 branch, and have each regression branch > be rebased off of that; then, each review would be merging an individual > regression fix into new-6750, and finally, when they're all fixed, landing > new-6750 on trunk with no new review provided all buildbots pass.
That seems logical to me. > >>> • If we can manage to get this feature landed again quickly after 14.1, >>> will you have time to do a fast-following 14.2? >> >> As long as it’s not the 22nd of November or the weekend of the 7th of Dec >> (the former of which will be spent in a drunk stupor and the latter is my >> birthday), I can do it no problem. > > I figured you could be accommodating, but thanks a lot for confirming! :) -hawkie
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
