Re: Declaring stage3 before stage2 patches were reviewed

[Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:17:51PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Why was stage3 declared before some of the invasive patches posted 
> during stage2 were reviewed?
> 
> A few of them (such as var-tracking), originally submitted during 
> stage2, weren't reviewed until stage3, and were then shot down as too 
> invasive.
> 
> It really seems a bit odd to say that people should submit certain 
> types of patches during certain stages, and then we declare the 
> beginning of a new stage and reject the old patches.
> 
> I don't believe we should have declared stage3 until the outstanding 
> "obviously inapproriate for stage3" stage2 patches were reviewed.

That can't work - what you probably mean is that a new stage
is needed, between 2 and 3, for which holds that:

1) No new invasive patches can be submitted.
2) All patches submitted till then need to be reviewed
   before the move to the the next stage can be made.

Having a patch of my own that is a month old now and still not
reviewed, I'd be very happy is something will be done to stop
patches falling of the edge of the stage 3 "precipice" (as opposed
to falling through the "cracks" in stage 2).

We need a fence at the edge of this cliff, in the form of
an extra stage.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>