From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K79ys-0003rz-Oj for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:10:24 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K79yh-0003vJ-RS for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:10:07 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:10:07 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:10:07 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:09:55 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1213345201.13942.3.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <74d0deb30806130306tf5ca604t7238ab26d715e03@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a2pre (Macintosh/2008060303) In-Reply-To: <74d0deb30806130306tf5ca604t7238ab26d715e03@mail.gmail.com> Sender: news Subject: Re: Switching SCM to git and commit/review policy X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.10 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:10:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit pHilipp Zabel wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> As always, there is a but. This change is conditional on being able to >> come up with a sensible commit and review policy for OE.dev. The core >> team does feel that the metadata quality has dropped over time in some >> areas and we need to have a better review process. The change to an SCM >> with good branch support is a vital part of this but not the only part. >> >> We've not made any decisions on what the commit/review policy should be, >> this is open for discussion. We're thinking it may take the form of some >> kind of kernel style Signed-off-by: tags and a switch to a partially >> pull based model rather than just push based as we use monotone so more >> than one developer handles any given change. > > Personally, I'd like to see every patch to OE being sent to and > reviewed on the mailing list. I'd like to see that every commit has at least 2 SOBs, I care less on how they get there. Having the review out in the open should be the end goal, though. > About a pull based model, wouldn't we need something like the kernels' > subsystem maintainers to share the load? Seeing that there already > seems to be a serious manpower problem, who would have the time to do > that? Not that RP says "*partially* pull based model rather than just push based", which means that bigger changes get done on a branch (e.g. libtool update, Xorg updates, etc) and get pulled in after a review. regards, Koen