Re: Commits to master in my absence

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 12:25 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 08/01/2011 06:45 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> 
> > I'm a little frustrated to see what happened when I was away from a
> > couple of days. I thought we'd agreed we'd queue up patches in a branch
> > and then I'd take care of things when I got back.
> 
> So, I agree with everything you did say.  But I'd also like to suggest
> we should have gone with "merge everything Monday" not "merge everything
> Wednesday before RP runs off".  Yes, this would have meant either moving
> some testing, or having testing also pull from a different (merged)
> branch.  And I too was "wait, what, more stuff went in?  I thought we
> caught the big problem already".

If I'd merged everything unexpectedly and not communicated the situation
I think that would be bad. As it was, I did merge things but I also
hopefully clearly communicated the issues and the expectation. Master is
the development tip and some instability, particularly as new features
merge is not entirely unexpected at this point in the cycle.

I'd hope we don't end up in a situation like that again, if we do, I'll
see what other options there and weigh them up as the situation
dictates.

Cheers,

Richard