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@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Alex Ionescu ionucu@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev