-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

(2011/11/08 0:25), Yugui wrote:
>>> == Proposal Let's parallelize the bottle-neck. Review and tests
>>> are necessary for stability and compatibility of released
>>> branches but these processes can be parallelized. I propose the
>>> following process:
>> 
>> I agree this in general.

There're some other proposals such as review before commit, but we
accept Yugui's proposal for now and start doing this, right?
According to commits to ruby_1_9_3, @arton is doing this already.  I'm
not against it.  Let's find problems by doing now.

Proposals like review before commit, requires LGTM*2 by committer,
would be good for new proposal for branch maintenance.  Now go write a
proposal how good/bad it is and file a ticket!

>>> * Another committer review the request. This reviewer checks if
>>> this commit is good enough and backport it to the older
>>> branch.
>> 
>> Do you mean the word "backport" as committing? If so, who changes
>> patchlevel? The committer? You?
> 
> I think the committer who commit the patch should also change patch
> level. Both Shyouhei's and my backport scripts automatically bump
> patch level, so it is not so hard.

@arton, can you do this?

// NaHi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOuKhFAAoJEC7N6P3yLbI20s4H/1nGsHqYQkouPSAd9R7deXUj
xSHWQ7kdRK056KID5wqewuqKxYkldgzAAZ0+osIeQuIpWP2HyiTdQJ+1os1y7IZa
osLvKo0FqlDAE/SZLlF9pC8aXl8VCrNF/Mmo5AAxUk4hfz4PYZNkBfBZWb38h/cb
yTcpgN/d+N/Be6by29MkhMsqxuffojoiowFX8bCK/WaETExLiLRNB+Pfy5Dnvx7j
/aomyBS9uRbA4aGUuWfujW8MATo0SikOgNez/2dhBeqVhrea5jAXsIlju6ndsInD
pQGs6xlijxi2ZDhjTcfdXBhhV0CJgiGzAJtk/PMBmn1y3+G/BgWjWTMnW7kes2E=
=FiZ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----