+1 -----Original Message----- From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 9:30 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]
+1 to this. No ci yet so everything "passes" and just gets the commiter review. We can define more later as needed On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 8:44 AM Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can we simplify the workflow to avoid creating so many temp branching > in the official repo: > 1.User submit PR against the master > 2.Run style, build and test through CI > 3.Review and comment PR by committer > 4.Merge PR into master if all check pass > User may have to repeat step 1 to 3 several time before PR finally accept. > Note 1: step 2 may be done by committer manually before the tool is ready. > Note 2: we can refine how many approvement is required before PR can be > merge. > If user send patch to dev@nuttx.apache.org instead, one of committer > need convert the patch to PR by the same process too. > If there has a big feature development, committer could create a > branch for that after voting in dev list, but the same process should > apply to this branch like master. > Actually, this process is almost same as bitbucket or github, many > developer is already familiar with it: > > https://help.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests > The major difference from David's is that no any temp PR branch is > created in the official repo. > > Thanks > Xiang > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 8:36 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This is the mantra we must always follow "support what you users want." > > Stay focused on the needs and convenience of the end-user. Always good > > advice. If there are complexities dependencies, we should quantine > > those complexities and dependencies inside the test architecture. We > > give the end-user maximal flexibility in all things. > > > > Businesses fail that don't listen tho their customers. We will also > > fail if we do not listen. > > > > On 12/21/2019 2:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > >> The purpose was accommodating the "repos must be on the ASF > infrastructure edict"[1] . > > >> Which I believe, please correct me if I am wrong, is pure git??? > > > Most(?) use git, some also use svn, there might be a couple that still > use cvs. Use of GitHub is not a requirement, but may be convenient.My > advice be flexible and support what you users want. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Justin > > > > > > > > >
