Note: I don't mean to put this on Bob. Anyone could drive this. But I do think it needs a driver. Bob, Randall, and Dirkjan all seem to have the most detailed thoughts on the subject, so I suggest one you might be in the best position.
And to clarify: someone disagreeing with you isn't a blocker. We're aiming for discussion-lead decision-making. Feel free to supply the "decision-making" that compliments the "discussion-lead" part. ;) On 4 June 2013 22:36, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Odd way to phrase it. Alternative proposals should not be > a destructive part of the process. The goal here is to generate ideas, toss > out the ones that don't work, pick your favourite, and drive consensus on > it. > > So, there are two possible ways I can see this unfolding: > > * Everyone agrees with you that the git-flow stuff is not needed, in > which case, great. Work everyone's comments in to the original proposal, > and then move it from DISCUSS to VOTE. > > * There is still some disagreement about what we want to do. In this > case, I agree, we do not have consensus. (I wouldn't describe this as > a destruction of coherency. Instead: productive discussion!) The next > step forward in this instances is to drive that discussion, and hopefully > come out with a proposal that most people like. > > I note that Randal posted several mails, and so did Dirkjan. But nobody > has responded to them. A good way to kick this off again would be to > respond to those points, I think. > > I would love to drive this, but I can't, mostly because I have no idea > what I'm talking about when it comes to Git. ;) > > > On 4 June 2013 19:03, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Heh, if I felt I could conclude that thread I would have done so >> already. We had a reasonably well described approach at one point and >> coherency was destroyed by a late appearance of the git-flow >> alternative. >> >> B. >> >> >> On 4 June 2013 18:43, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> > This thread is concluded. :) I meant the "[DISCUSS] Git workflow" >> thread. >> > >> > >> > On 4 June 2013 18:41, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> What's not concluded in this thread? >> >> >> >> B. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4 June 2013 18:04, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Bob, are you able to help drive the Git thread to conclusion? We >> need to >> >> > clarify this and document it. Think a lot people are confused right >> now >> >> > since it seems everything is in the air. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 31 May 2013 16:51, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> master, as usual, and the x.y.z branches (for backports). All other >> >> >> branches should be feature or fix branches we've not deleted. >> >> >> >> >> >> B. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 31 May 2013 16:47, Wendall Cada <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > I'm fairly well versed in using git and different workflows, >> rebase, >> >> etc. >> >> >> > However, I'm utterly confused as to how I might contribute >> changes to >> >> >> > couchdb, what branches are relevant, etc. Is there documentation >> for >> >> >> this, >> >> >> > or a clear summary of decisions made? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Wendall >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > NS >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > NS >> > > > > -- > NS > -- NS
