On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 16:25, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 01:49:48AM +0100, Greg Stein wrote:
>> That applies to partial committers fixing "obvious" things outside
>> their normal allowed area. It does not apply to merging changes onto a
>> release branch. The description of change management for release
>> branches even refers to obvious fixes when talking about *voting* for
>> those types of changes.
>
> Where?
#obvious-fixes is the section that covers "Obvious fixes" and it is
only in reference to partial committers making "obvious fixes" outside
of their normal area.
> All I could find is that "Obvious fixes do not require '(rX only)'
> to be mentioned".
"... to be mentioned [IN THE VOTING]." It says nothing about "go ahead
and commit whatever you think is obvious to the release branch."
> I don't see a problem with invoking the obvious fix rule in this case.
I do. Very much so.
The release branch is about *stabilization*, and that process is under
the sole guidance of the Release Manager. That is *why* we have a
release manager. We cannot allow people to simply commit whatever they
feel is "obvious" to a branch that we are stabilizing for release. If
it is obvious, then it will get voted on and merged.
> Arfrever mentioned that he invoked the rule, making clear to everyone
> what his reasoning for merging the change is. So the only thing worth
> arguing is whether we all agree the commit was an obvious fix or not.
Right. And that is why we have VOTING. The release branch is *closed*
to all but the Release Manager. We vote to get changes merged. We
don't simply declare it "obvious" and merge it.
>> And (IMO) merging changes into a release should be deferred to the RM
>> simply for politeness' sake.
>
> I have made merges into release branches before.
> I'd say once there are enough votes, it does not matter who does the
> merging. I see no issue of politeness.
You're circumventing the Release Manager. I consider that impolite.
You're basically saying, "I'm going to do this without your review,
permission, or oversight. Your role does not matter to me."
(note that Hyrum may not care, but I do; the RM's role is a social
contract that is a Good Thing to honor)
Cheers,
-g
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1251060
Received on 2009-03-01 17:08:32 CET