On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 05:57:39PM +0100, chrysn wrote: > i'm delighted that the calypso project is seeing more activity, and i've > finally found the time to read up on what has been posted here, and > getting an overview of the current branches again.
Welcome back :)
> * committ access: it seems to have become common practice for even
> people who do have commit access (right now, that'd the alioth project
> members guido, jelmer, keith and myself) send their patches to the
> list, and if there is a LGTM / +1 from someone else and no "let's
> discuss" / -1 from anyone, it gets pushed to alioth/master.
>
> this seems like a good workflow to me, especially as pushing something
> to master doesn't mean it stays there irrevocably / until the next
> release, but gives a good flow of changes in general.
+1
> * project membership: i'd keep that rather lose, as long as the above
> flow is used. (for example, based on his initiative and posts on the
> list, i wouldn't hesitate to accept petter's pending membership
> request).
>
> currently, it's all admins on alioth. i think that's ok for now; it's
> not like we could differentiate between who may upload a signed tag
> and who may edit the web page (see below) anyway, at least i didn't
> find options to that respect in the gui.
+1
> * commit styles: i'm a big fan of --no-ff merged topic branches, as it
> retains the granularity of "commit often" while still being viewable
> as a single change as well -- but that becomes a bit impractical when
> sending patches one-mail-per-commit style, and is more easily reviewed
> by pushing the commit to a branch or personal repo (alioth allows
> users to request a /git/calypso/users/${USERNAME}.git repo).
>
> guido, what's your stance on that style of pull requests, would it
> work for you? (afair you expressed a preference for mailed patches).
I don't have a strong opinion on --no-ff vs ff merged branches, but I
do like mailed patches. I don't think mailed patches are incompatible
with either though?
> * python-vobject: calypso deeply depends on python-vobject, which is
> practically dead upstream. i'd like to take over the library
> development (or maintenance), and polish up the python3 branch there;
> the calypso project seems like a good umbrella to that, and i'd apply
> all mechanisms we're using here to python-vobject too (not sure how
> well alioth supports having two project names in one project, i'd
> figure that out on demand). any objections there?
It would be nice to keep it as a separate Python package so others can
use it (rather than e.g. embedding in calypso), but taking it under
the calypso umbrella seems like a good idea to me.
Cheers,
Jelmer
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Calypso mailing list Calypso@keithp.com http://keithp.com/mailman/listinfo/calypso
