Source Mage code commit list

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On May 05, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 07:45:02PM +0200, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> > > Couple problems here:
> > > This bug (11018) does not have an integrate to stable flag, is this a
> > > security fix? Why is this exempt from normal process?
> > >
> > > More than just the fix for bug 11018 was integrated (supposed to
> > > cherry-pick the minimal changeset) KEYWORDS was not necessary for bug
> > > 11018 to be fixed.
> > 
> > 
> > I just have come to my office. I wanted to fix some bugs and make our 
> > distro again a little better. Thanks to you I am only angry and no mood 
> > to fix spells. Why to do it? To read such an emails.  I really do not 
> > understand you.  I fixed a bug in devel and test grimoire. Why do you 
> > want  our users of stable grimoire to have broken spell? How long? Until 
> > stable 0.4?
> > 
> > What is a normal process? I thought that stable flag was only for 
> > developers without access to stable grimoire. I have this access. Some 
> > fellows probably believe me, you probably not. I have been contributing 
> > to our distro more than 4 years. My first spells (for example ethereal) 
> > have ENTERED=20020116. Do you thing I want to destroy stable grimoire? 
> > Moreover I only added DEPENDS file and KEYWORDS.
> > 
> > Andrew, we both know we have different opinions about new features and 
> > about next developing of our distro. However we both want the same, the 
> > better distro. So please, do not provoke me.
>  
> I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant as provocation, just a note about policy
> that might not have been clear so far.
> Those flags are for everyone, whether they have access to stable or not,
> to get another set of eyes looking at changes.
> I'm writing a mail to sm-discuss right now to get comments about the
> process I'd like to see implemented for such integrations.

I will note that in the last week or two IIRC we've seen at least once
where the PL requested integration on a security fix and had it rejected
initially because he forgot to increment SECURITY_PATCH.  It's for that
kind of thing.  We all make mistakes, I for one don't want my changes going
to stable without someone else agreeing with them.

Attachment: pgpbjuXoDSbM0.pgp
Description: PGP signature