attn folk doing reviews.

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 18:30 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2006, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 16:01 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > > I put some thoughts up here about what I'd really like in a tool for
> > > reviewing incoming changes:
> > > 
> > >   http://bazaar.canonical.com/ReviewInterface
> > 
> > This is a reminder to update this now ;)
> 
> Yep, done.
> 
> One thing that came out of talking about this was that I could really
> separate the "review" and "integrate" roles more.  That is to say (if
> I'm not putting the wrong words in Robert's mouth) that a patch can be
> reviewed and get a provisional +1 even if it currently fails tests when
> merged into mainline.  Obviously those need to be fixed up by either the
> original submitter or someone else before it finally goes in but it's
> possible that the fixes are small enough that it doesn't need to go
> around for review again.

Thats exactly the crux of it. 

Deciding to merge something - peer review and consensus on
design/code/testing etc.

Merging something - tests pass and decision to merge has already taken
place.

Having those decoupled makes for a smoother process, even though
occasional branches will get past the first step, fail on the second,
and require sufficient changes that they need to go back to the first
step again.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060124/23054894/attachment.pgp