New development model check-in.

[Michel Dänzer]

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 00:30 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 01:20:48PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 23:01 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: 
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:38:01AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > Are there at least any indications that we're getting any tangible
> > > > benefits from this increased workload?
> > > 
> > > You don't think it's a little early to tell? I mean, we're only, what,
> > > six weeks in? Less?
> > 
> > It's already clear that it's much harder to get even relatively
> > straightforward stuff in, and creates more work for everybody. Nobody's
> > answered my question why that would be a good idea for a project which
> > is supposedly suffering from lack of manpower.
> 
> I don't think that's necessarily true in areas that aren't EXA;
> certainly, no-one else has complained, and the patch flow from both
> regular and one-off contributors seems to be very similar to what it was
> before the change.

Is it really? I see fixes getting ignored on the list, even by people
who previously could have just pushed them.

> I can't speak for Keith, but I would've assumed that as a major
> subsystem responsible for some inordinately large percentage of commits
> these days, that EXA would have (at least) one tree where one could pull
> from to obtain the latest reviewed and mergeable EXA commits.  It makes
> everyone's lives a lot easier -- including yours, because you don't have
> to patchbomb the list and follow up doggedly on the patchbombs.  One
> mail ('please pull the EXA tree') would suffice.

It's still more work than before, even ignoring the time and effort it
takes to change the mode of operation.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer           |                http://www.vmware.com
Libre software enthusiast         |          Debian, X and DRI developer