[LinuxBIOS] "Trivial" patches
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sat Nov 24 02:24:36 CET 2007
On 21.11.2007 00:30, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:40:26PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>>> OK, can we decide on what should be (not) allowed, preferably as regexp
>>> for the diff?
>>> Checking for added files in the commit hook is easy. [...]
>> Overkill, IMO. Just flame whoever did crap, in the worst case we revert
>> the patch.
> Seconded. A "trivial" patch must _never_ break anything. Leave that basically
> to each committer's judgement. If it does break something, flame at will; we
> all make mistakes, but the blame must hurt ;-) In the long run, someone
> incapable of forseeing such breakage should not retain commit rights, IMHO.
Removing commit rights of a person is surely a drastic measure, and the
only one that works in case we don't enforce sane behaviour in the
commit hooks. If I had my commit rights revoked, I'd probably feel
offended very much.
> Besides that, do we agree that at least adding a new function or macro is
> non-trivial (by definition, if you like)? This would also cover refactoring
> and the design of new subsystems and would allow to split out a new file from
> an existing big one OTOH.
By that logic, adding a new file is non-trivial as well. Nice. The
conditions above surely can be checked in a commit hook.
More information about the coreboot