Parts on hold on PT


Re: Proposal Re: Parts on hold on PT
#15
Allen Smith Wrote:I feel any policy change to reduce the embargo time would be most beneficial.

Personally, I think the ideal hold time is zero. After all, this is how software development usually works. Most version control systems accept changes at any time. If someone else commits a change to a file you are working on, the version control system automatically merges in the other person's changes before you commit.

From my perspective I'd be happy with zero delay. And when I remember to do it I state as such. But I can understand someone feeling some level of ownership over a really complex part (as I recall the was a genuine issue when we introduced the previous change opening the parts up after three months). That's why I tried to keep the proposal flexible enough to allow for people to 'control' their own submissions when they feel the need.

Tim
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Parts on hold on PT - by Michael Heidemann - 2013-03-10, 10:06
Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Philippe Hurbain - 2013-03-10, 10:44
Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Chris Dee - 2013-03-10, 14:56
Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Steffen - 2013-04-14, 12:40
Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Magnus Forsberg - 2013-03-10, 16:04
Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Philippe Hurbain - 2013-03-10, 16:30
Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Tim Gould - 2013-03-10, 23:03
Re: Proposal Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Tim Gould - 2013-03-13, 22:45
Re: Parts on hold on PT - by Stan Isachenko - 2013-03-10, 20:38

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)