On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017, 08:27:12 CET schrieb Steve Beattie: > >> There more work to do to flesh out the above and standardize on some > >> practices around git, but this should let us make progress. > > > > One thing we use for the openSUSE infrastructure salt code is the > > "Protected Branches" feature: > > https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/user/project/protected_branches.html > > > > Protected branches prevent force pushing and deleting a branch, which > > IMHO makes sense for master and the apparmor-* maintenance branches. > > (Ideally we'll never notice that we have that sort of protection, but it > > helps to prevent accidents.) > > This sounds like a very good thing to enable.
Agreed, I'll set this up for the apparmor and apparmor-profiles repos. > > That's something time will tell, and it probably also depends on the > > size of the patch. (I'll assume everybody has notifications for new merge > > requests enabled in the gitlab config, right? ;-) > > I recently contributed a fairly complex patch set to a GitHub project > and will assume that it is a similar experience in GitLab in order to > give my opinion here. > > I really enjoyed the web-based merge request workflow and think it can > be an improvement over the mailing list patchset based flow. However, > I'd strongly recommend that we require contributors to: > > 1) Create a merge request > 2) Receive feedback from maintainers > 3) If changes are required, fold changes necessary to address feedback > into the existing patches, rebase, and force push to their merge request > branch. > > #3 is necessary to avoid a bunch of fixup patches that shouldn't be > standalone. It also makes for an bisect-able tree since there's no > broken commits being merged (with separate fixup commits). > > > I also wonder how to handle the Acked-by messages in case we use merge > > requests - while it's possible with git rebase + using the "reword" > > keyword, it means we'll have to force-push to those branches before > > merging them. > > What the maintainer did for the GitHub contribution that I mentioned > above was to merge my pull request into a local branch, interactive > rebase to add his Signed-off-by, and then push the resulting branch to > to the master branch on GitHub. Do you have a pointer to the merge request/commit so that we can see what that ended up looking like in git? -- Steve Beattie <[email protected]> http://NxNW.org/~steve/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
