From ac4340e39170d6cc97f9de430a52b69a9a22567e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?=C3=98yvind=20Harboe?= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:36:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] HACKING: add explanation why we want cool-off times as long as a week or two MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Change-Id: I281e9145f43bc7ac173e02c4e209834f0deaae2b Signed-off-by: Øyvind Harboe Reviewed-on: http://openocd.zylin.com/254 Tested-by: jenkins Reviewed-by: Spencer Oliver Reviewed-by: Mathias Küster Reviewed-by: Øyvind Harboe --- HACKING | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index 6d89b01e3..ed9717154 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -121,4 +121,25 @@ git push review Further reading: -http://www.coreboot.org/Git \ No newline at end of file +http://www.coreboot.org/Git + + +When can I expect my contribution to be committed? +================================================== + +The code review is intended to take as long as a week or two to allow +maintainers and contributors who work on OpenOCD only in their spare +time oportunity to perform a review and raise objections. + +With Gerrit much of the urgency of getting things committed has been +removed as the work in progress is safely stored in Gerrit and +available if someone needs to build on your work before it is +submitted to the official repository. + +Another factor that contributes to the desire for longer cool-off +times (the time a patch lies around without any further changes or +comments), it means that the chances of quality regression on the +master branch will be much reduced. + +If a contributor pushes a patch, it is considered good form if another +contributor actually approves and submits that patch.