Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

[Colin Campbell]

On 12-01-29 11:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG<address@hidden>  writes:
>
> > > > OK.  BTW, I've meant staging, not master.  Sorry for the thinko.
> > > Same thing.  Once it is in staging, it will move forward
> > > _automatically_ to master potentially within hours unless there is a
> > > compilation/testing error.
> > Humpf.  I wasn't fully aware of this automatism.
> >
> > OK, will apply manually and test soon.
> Thanks.  Note that this does _not_ mean regtests and doc builds: we have
> automatisms for that.  It means running your own files that use this
> feature, and reading the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new
> incarnation of the feature make sense to you.
>
> Opinions are more important than results here, and results are only
> important as _experiences_, namely connected with your own, individual
> work.
>
> Don't bother doing the job of the computer.  We need that of the human.
>
> Thanks


As an interjection from a semi-human part of the process: I ordinarily 
put patches on countdown rather aggressively, with the inent of keeping 
them flowing through the system.  I could easily restrict countdowns to 
those patches which have an explicit LGTM from a senior developer.  
Another approach might be to ask developers to flag their especially 
critical patches with a "needs LGTM".  I'm afraid both would slow the 
patch clearing process, but either should give the sort of explicit 
review David is seeking.

Colin


--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both 
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )