[illumos-Advocates] RTI standards for Joyent cherry-picking?

[Garrett D'Amore]

I believe it is reasonable to accept their test results, and perhaps
their code review, *provided* that we can collect that data from them
(i.e. who @ Joyent code reviewed).  Alternatively for code review, the
advocate can perform the code review, and treat the submission as coming
from the original Joyent author (I actually prefer this way).

This would not necessarily mean any reduction in the process, but it
would allow things to go more quickly.

	- Garrett

On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 09:55 -0400, Gordon Ross wrote:
> We should talk about what we want the RTI standards to be for
> cherry-picking Joyent changes.  Maybe some "shrink to fit" is
> reasonable, depending how much trust we extend to them.
> I trust them to review their changes, not introduce lint, etc.
> 
> If you extend that trust, what's left for RTI requirements?
> Just make sure that the changes you're taking separately
> don't break the build and/or introduce lint?  testing?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Gordon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advocates mailing list
> Advocates at lists.illumos.org
> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/advocates