So you are suggesting we are actually requiring committers to use GitHub? Not sure what the difference between "propose/(PR|JIRA)" and "(email|JIRA -> PR/review)+" is in Andy's proposal.
Are the pull request automatically referenced in the Jira issues? Are code commits already referenced (or do we have to ask Infra to enable this)? I think as our project is supposed to deliver little but high quality code this would be a case for the RTC approach. My suggestion would have been to have branches in git (typically one per issue) and then vote on merging it into master. Cheers, Reto On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 the pragmatic approach Andy suggested > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Peter Ansell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 10 April 2015 at 03:49, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As a small project, I think we should be pragmatic: > > > > > > Things that are clearly fixes: > > > commit-then-review > > > Things that are localised changes: > > > propose/(PR|JIRA) -> timeout -> commit > > > Things that are major changes: > > > (email|JIRA -> PR/review)+ -> commit > > > > > > making sure that the GH plumbing is actually sending the emails to dev@ > > > > > > +1 for pragmatic. We are a very small project, so minor changes can > > easily be reverted if they are not going to work, but if the change is > > large it should be discussed first. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Peter > > > > > > -- > Sergio Fernández > Partner Technology Manager > Redlink GmbH > m: +43 6602747925 > e: [email protected] > w: http://redlink.co >
