Agreed, this kind of important decisions should be made by a vote. Sebastien, Daan, can one of you kick of the vote thread? Preferably with a condensed summary of the thread?
Cheers, Hugo On 28 jul. 2014, at 14:07, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > +1 to what Erik said. > > > On 28 July 2014 13:04, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> H, >>> >>> I see a lot of commits happening directly on the master branch. Yet >>> there were no counter arguments against the proposed gitflow and the >>> discussion around it. This leaves me with the idea that the thread is >>> largely ignored by the community. It is my understanding that we >>> agreed never to commit anything to master anymore that hasn't been >>> first committed to a branch and is merged back to master (instead of >>> cherry-picked). What mistake in thinking am I making here? >>> >>> >> >> Not familiar with bylaws and the such, but wouldn't a change like this >> require some sort of voting and potentially a more formal information? >> >> Requiring everyone to read through a 50+ replies mail thread and comprehend >> it could be a bit much. >> >> I would suggest an updated document that explain the expected workflow. >> >> -- >> Erik >>
