Re: Rietveld workflow problems

[address@hidden]

On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:27 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

> 
> Just wanted to throw this observation out: the current work on optional
> arguments is one area where working with Rietveld is getting really
> strained.  The reason is that Rietveld just supports discussing and
> improving a single patch/commit.
> 
> The current patch series consists of one infrastructure patch (allowing
> pushing tokens with values) and "the rest".
> 
> But there are about five different other (co-developed) infrastructure
> patches that the whole depends on.  Making those independent issues
> would mean that you could not apply the main Rietveld patch to
> origin/master and check it out.
> 
> So my workflow when on a larger Rietveld-reviewed patch like this
> consists of silently pushing required infrastructure/cleanup patches
> without discussion or review in order to keep origin/master in a state
> where one can meaningfully discuss the large single patch on top without
> getting side-tracked in unrelated issues.
> 
> That's not really pretty.
> 

For what it's worth, I run into the same problem from time to time - I recently 
sent an e-mail to the list about a 1-line patch to fix kneed beams that I 
needed to apply for other work.  Ditto for a variable-name changing patch.  I 
think that if it is really infrastructure / clean-up / small, then if you send 
an e-mail to the list with a heads up and nobody complains within 12ish hours 
(and/or if you get a "LGTM"), then it is OK to push.  The definition of 
infrastructure / clean-up / small is, of course, up for debate, but I think 
that people have a pretty good sense of what needs review and what doesn't.

Cheers,
MS