8 Jun
2008
8 Jun
'08
10:05 a.m.
The process doesn't depend on Step 1, but having it helps there -- it
protects modules such as Win32k and Ntoskrnl a bit more than if the
step wasn't there at all.
More importantly, it documents the process -- it leaves a paper trail,
which is a lot better than today's typical "Revert after IRC
discussion" commit logs...
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Alex Ionescu
<ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
1<- At this step, someone responsible for
win32k should've gotten the
bug report, and maybe had time to reject the patch
This implies that module has an owner. Not every module does. Some
people such as yourself and Fireball are adamant about reviewing what
goes in and spotting breakages real quick. Other parts like the BSD
code used in the network stack might not have the same level of review
so step 1 could be a non-starter. I agree with all the other steps
though, having branches, commit to the branch, run the test,
integration suite does the rest of the magic and commits to the trunk
everything should be good provided the system and tests are robust
enough.
Thanks
--
Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev