[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [patch] Fix mordents and pralltriller in

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix mordents and pralltriller in
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:41:21 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:25:40PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Graham Percival
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Well, I think this one is simple enough to push directly.
> Shall i do this?
> And shall i not ask next time? ;)

If you are certain that it will cause no problems, and willing to
take responsibility if it does cause problems after all.

> > I think that was also simple enough not to need an individual
> > patchy test.  As long as it was pushed to staging and not master,
> > stuff that simple is fine.
> That was also my reasoning.  It's unbelievable how much time is spend
> on patch maintenance...  A simple change can take 5 days (in my case
> it means 5 days of constant awareness about the patch)...

Oh?  And yet, a few hours ago, we saw that a questionable patch in
staging.  We had to look at it manually, back it out, do a
forced-updated of that branch which changes all committishes...
it's a pain.

If you're willing to work on improving things, write a python
script that takes care of putting stuff on a countdown.  That's a
task that's trivially done by a script, and it'll exercise your
python and json knowledge.  See the Patchy code for hints.  If
you're not interested in doing that type of work, fine; we can
live with the status quo.

(no, the "automatic countdown" won't address patch-handling
concerns arising from this specific instance, but an automatic
countdown is the easiest thing we can automate.  If nobody is
interested in doing that, there's no point discussing more
complicated things)

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]