Re: [PATCH] do not abort on broken .cpio file
- From: Denys Vlasenko <vda linux googlemail com>
- To: "Yury V. Zaytsev" <yury shurup com>
- Cc: mc-devel gnome org
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] do not abort on broken .cpio file
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:43:05 +0100
On Sunday 01 November 2009 11:59, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 03:02 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> > This wastes your time. Maybe it makes sense to allow
> > trivial fixes to be applied without going through
> > this process?
>
> What are your suggestions on how would you track what, from where and
> WHY gets into master, who reviewed the code before submission and
> checked that it builds / does not introduce regressions then?
For example, you can have a rule that committer is responsible for that.
If you have a few people in your team whom you trust
that they are organized enough to always do a compile test
and a basic run test before committing, then they may
be entrusted in "fast-forwarding" trivial stuff.
> I agree that it takes time, but it does not *waste* time, because
> afterward it makes much easier to figure out how and when a particular
> regression or bug was introduced.
>
> You think that your patch is trivial, but we have a record of one-liners
> introducing very weird and hard to find regressions. Sometimes it takes
> hours of bisecting to figure out what broke a particular feature...
Yep, happens all the time.
> Therefore, if you want to spare us some time, you are asked to create a
> ticket in the tracker and attach your patches there, so that we won't
> have to do it for you.
Noted.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]