> I don't think multiple queues per se are a problem; the deficiency I see
> in our patching procedures is lack of visibility of the status of a
> proposed patch. If it's not been applied, is it just because no one
> has gotten to it yet, or was there an objection from someone? What's
> worse is that one of the people with commit access might miss or forget
> about such an objection, and commit a bogus patch anyway sometime later.
> We have enough committers now that I think there's a definite risk here.
>
> If we wanted to be really organized about this, it'd be cool to have
> a central database with an item for each proposed patch and links to
> followup discussions. But I'm not sure it's worth the work it would
> take to set it up and then maintain the entries. Unless we get badly
> bitten by a mistake that such a database would've prevented, it probably
> won't happen ...
I keep them in my mailbox, delete them if there is objection or someone
else applies it. Eventually, I apply it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
