Re: [PATCH] do not abort on broken .cpio file

[Denys Vlasenko <vda linux googlemail com>]

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.