On 4/11/14 7:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: > I've seen a handful of patches submitted to Gerrit with [WIP] in the > title. Obviously this means "work in progress", but what does it mean > for reviewers of the patch? Should reviews be held off until > more/better patches are submitted (with help accepted)? Notification > that a feature is being worked on? Please help me test this?
I've been using it for feature branches, to stage code that either has a long development cycle or needs to be tested on different machines. My take: - Reviews: If someone wants to review the code that's fine, but WIP implies "moving target". - Help: Always welcome, and the sort of thing that Gerrit is supposed to facilitate. - Notification: This is built-in as long as the commit title is sufficiently descriptive. - Testing: Always welcome. The early feedback I Qt IO graph (change 435) helped to direct later changes to the code. > If a reviewer thinks the current patch is "a good start" for a feature > (and worthy of current inclusion), is it okay to give the +2? I don't see why not, but he or she should probably check with the submitter first. > Since Gerrit doesn't seem to track multiple patches to a "feature" like > a Bugzilla ticket can, is the [WIP] trying to be "feature complete" > before submission? It does as long as a single change ID maps to a "feature". I ended up uploading 10 patch sets for the IO Graph. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
