Hi JB, If I remember correctly from the past discussions, we agreed that we want a PR-review process for all code changes which are important/major or break the API in some way. I wholeheartedly agree with this process.
In addition, committers preserve the right to provide small fixes which do not change important logic of the system. Ideally, this should only be changes that are part of the component which the committer is responsible for. In this way, we can focus on important pull requests and still provide meaningful fixes. It is the committer's responsibility to make sure those fixes don't hinder other committers' work. If necessary, committers should sync with each other before pushing fixes. In rare cases, commits can be reverted. Pull requests are a very important tool in the open source development process. Whenever possible, let's use them but please let's not enforce them. Community is also about trusting each other. Direct pushes should be used with care and shouldn't be the normal development process. On the other side, pull requests which get merged away immediately are not meaningful either. So far I think we are doing a good job. Please correct me if you feel differently. Best, Max On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > As a reminder, we agreed that everyone in the project should use the same > workflow: prepare a PR, submit the PR, give some time to review, apply the > PR. > > Right now, we had some pushes directly without a PR. > > It would be great to we *all* use the same workflow. > > Thanks ! > > Regards > JB > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com
