On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 03:56:26PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 02:57:05PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Nathanael said it did not interfere with any of the other _projects_,
not that it would be disjoint from all Stage 1 _patches_.
Fair point.
I would certainly prefer that you hold off until Stage 2, as indicated
by the documented I posted.
Could you explain what benefits from waiting? None of the other large,
The primary benefit is just reduced risk, as you suggest.
The Stage 1 schedule looks full to me, and I'd like to see those patches
go in soon so that we can start shaking out the inevitable problems.
I'm much less worried about the long-term impact of Nathanael's patch;
if it breaks something, it will get fixed, and then that will be that.
But, that brief breakage might make things difficult for people putting
in things during Stage 1, or compound the problem of having an unstable
mainline.
I think that's not a useful criteria for scheduling decisions.
Let me be more concrete. Paolo Bonzini posted a patch to move
in-srcdir builds to a host subdirectory. This is a substantial build
infrastructure change, even though it will not affect a substantial
number of developers - assuming it works correctly. I consider it no
different "in kind" from Nathanael's changes. He can approve that; so
a system where he can't approve his own tested patch is one in which
you are overriding his judgement. ISTR that that is exactly what you
did not want to do with this scheduling exercise.
No offense intended to Paolo, of course! I picked a recent example.
We're less than a week into stage 1, so I don't have much in the way of
samples to draw on.