ron minnich wrote:
> This is another case where I would kind of prefer to let the "shipping
> version " if the code go in as is, then put the revs in.
I understand that, but it would nevertheless be nice to pretend to
care about review feedback. I don't think anyone expects feedback to
neccessarily lead to further patchsets on a change, especially for
code that is already shipping.
On the odd chance that there is something valuable that the community
can contribute, leaving next to no room for feedback can easily make
people feel discouraged.
> it's useful to have a version in the repo that is exactly what's on
> that machine
Agreed.
> I think it would be wonderful if we could get your comments in and do
> another rev based on that
At the very least maybe keep things in mind for the future.
> with the caveat that at that point you're no longer building what's
> on the machine and there are no guarantees.
Of course. I'd suggest to additionally create a git tag on the
commit, with a name that somehow corresponds to supply chain
identification of the machine.
//Peter