Ingo,
Thanks for the commentary. Would you suggest that having one large patch
would have been easier to handle logistically? Or do you think we should
always process patches in serial to avoid confusion?
I am just trying to come to an understanding of how I as a developer can
help avoid problems in the future. ;)
>> http://lists.mysql.com/commits/89594
>
> What a mess. I thought, our workflow was like this:
>
> Implementor Reviewers
>
> Prepare patch 1
>
> Prepare patch 2 Review patch 1
>
> Prepare patch 3 Review patch 2
>
> Rework patch 1 Review patch 3
>
> Rework patch 2 Review new patch 1
>
> ...
>
> But when you rework a patch immediately after *one* reviewer provides
> comments and blame the other one to use an old patch, we're not doing as
> well as we could.
>
> When you publish a new list of patches every day, but reviewers need 1.5
> to 2 days for a review of all three, we're doing a mess, but we're not
> doing as well as we could.
>
> In many cases, where congestion is an issue, the motto is "Go slower to
> move faster."
Chuck
