<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 27, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Laurens Van Houtven wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Menlo; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; ">I have diagrammed the quantum-transmogrifier example that I tried to<br>explain in the last email.<br></span></span></blockquote></div><br><div>OK. With this diagram in mind, I can see that what you're proposing is nearly identical to what I've already proposed, except that you are being very vague as to the *requirements* on when and whether branches get merged. I'm not concerned with the "level of confidence" that you describe (we already have that), but with a modification to the *requirement* that branches be fully reviewed before a merge to trunk, and that the reviewer can block that merge.</div><div><br></div><div>What I've suggested, simply put, is that we can have branches that land on trunk without being fully code-reviewed, *provided that each commit to that branch was itself code-reviewed*. There are a few fiddly details beyond that, but we seem to be in agreement on that broad picture.</div><div><br></div><div>So, sorry for a terse response to a message that obviously took a long time to write, but I don't think this merits further discussion :).</div><div><br></div><div>-glyph</div><div><br></div></body></html>