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 1LDNKa-0003Va-4R for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:10:40 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LDNG3-0005ra-Fy for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:05:59 +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 ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:05:59 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:05:59 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:05:51 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20081218071901.GB2135@buddha.tw.openmoko.com> <20081218150517.GI2135@buddha.tw.openmoko.com> <1229619255.9166.66.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081211 Shredder/3.0b2pre In-Reply-To: <1229619255.9166.66.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> Sender: news Subject: Re: openmoko-merges X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:10:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 18-12-08 17:54, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 16:24 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >> On 18-12-08 16:05, John Lee wrote: >>> Okay, here is what I will do: >>> >>> 1) commit zero controversial part into oe.dev first. >> You don't know if it's controversial or not without it being reviewed. >> So no, don't commit stuff. > > Is there now a policy of requiring review and pre-approval for all > checkins to the tree? If so, when was this instigated? I haven't > noticed any discussion of that and I would not be in favour of any such > change. No policy for checkins per se, but for merging commits for large branches. In this case, a review was requested and the response was to *not* commit anything. Asking for a review and then saying "I'll be the judge of things" is a bit backwards. The coreteam will make a statement about merging branches soonish. regards, Koen