Awesome news. Thanks Randall!
On 5 June 2013 02:37, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll drive this. Let me try to wrangle a draft proposal together. > Dirkjan replied to me and that feedback is helpful. > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > -- NS
