Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 22:08:03 +0200:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 09:45:18PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, this isn't really related to performance; it belongs on /trunk. Next
>>>> time, you could send this with a [PATCH] marker in the subject line, and
>>>> a full committer could +1 you to commit that to directly to /trunk.
>>>>
>>> Yes, please send patches if you have a change that isn't direclty
>>> related to your performance improvements work.
>>>
>>> The scope of the branch is not "stefan2 makes all of his commits there",
>>> it's "this branch is for stefan2's performance-related work".
>>>
> This was a special case because without the patch, my load
> tests wouldn't run. So, I could at least kind of justify the process
> violation to myself as "performance-related work".
>
Sure, but we still want to get the patch in trunk one way or another (and
before the whole branch is merged). Just committing it to the branch and
forgetting about it doesn't solve the problem :-)
Speaking of which: what's the plan for merging the branch to trunk? i.e.,
it's great to see you working there and making progress, but we all would
like to see that in 1.7 (or, at least, 1.8)...
> If I'm not mistaken, there are no outstanding behavioral patches
> left that I would need for my performance improvements.
Okay. (I don't recall any either, of those I'd reviewed.)
Received on 2010-08-12 22:49:59 CEST