From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 3 23: 4:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from poboxer.pobox.com (unknown [208.149.16.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC3015435 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:04:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alk@poboxer.pobox.com) Received: (from alk@localhost) by poboxer.pobox.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id BAA25362; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:04:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from alk) From: Anthony Kimball MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:04:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Face: \h9Jg:Cuivl4S*UP-)gO.6O=T]]@ncM*tn4zG);)lk#4|lqEx=*talx?.Gk,dMQU2)ptPC17cpBzm(l'M|H8BUF1&]dDCxZ.c~Wy6-j,^V1E(NtX$FpkkdnJixsJHE95JlhO 5\M3jh'YiO7KPCn0~W`Ro44_TB@&JuuqRqgPL'0/{):7rU-%.*@/>q?1&Ed Reply-To: alk@pobox.com To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: reviews X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <14167.27595.38162.324946@avalon.east> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Peanut comment: As long as you get all the reviews done before a snap, I don't see any reason not to pipeline the process by letting commits procede before review. They can be backed out/revised, after all. In commercial projects this is usually considered bad when you have external dependents, like QA snapshots, but that shouldn't make it an item of universal dogma. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message