On Monday 01 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, Hi Ralf, and thanks for bringing this up again.
> I'm so totally behind on patches and not getting better, that the > strategy of ignoring testsuite work will not help either. So how about > the following. IIRC you suggested a branch for low-danger testsuite > updates. I'm not sure if a single branch would always be the right > thing to do, often things that are independent can better be treated > in independent branches. But anyway, how about if you go ahead with > the idea of merging such patches, preferably based off of maint and > merge to master (unless there are really good reasons why branch-1.11 > would need them too), with the following strategy similar to Libtool: > you post the patches, and push them after 72 hours if no feedback by > then. WDYT? Does that sound good enough for you? Definitely yes, thanks! Just one question: what about the already-existing "tests-init" branch? Should I try to bring it to a point where it can be easily merged into master, and then forget about it, or should it continue to live parallel to master? > For existing patches that you already posted, may I ask for one more > ping including above 72 hours Sure, no problem. > (and maybe not ping all of them at once ;-) Eh eh ;-) > Thanks, and sorry for the long delays, > Ralf Thanks, Stefano
