Not sure throwing more tools at the current mess will fix anthing. Full support to Greg for benevolent dictatorship extension until things are settled.
Sebastien Le 24/12/2019 à 08:03, Disruptive Solutions a écrit : > A platform like this could help? Samsung seems to use it? Does Apache has > something like this “Helix Core” and “Swarm” ?? > > https://www.perforce.com/products/helix-swarm > > Benefit drom these ideas? And you could start with 1 commiter and scale up > later. The way of working will be getting more clear and get to the > “standards” Greg sees?? > > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > >> Op 24 dec. 2019 om 06:07 heeft Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:51 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Recent events have made me reconsider some decisions I made. I threw >>> off the single committer mantle when I saw the abuse of privilege in the >>> repositories. If the PPMC agrees to it, I will take up that role again. >>> >>> But let's be frank. Here is what I think that means: >>> >>> * I would be sole committer of changes. The repositories would have >>> to be treated as read-only just as back in the Bitbucket days. >>> * I would grandfather in the i.MXRT changes. >>> * I will decline all workflow related changes until workflow >>> requirements are established (that is my only real motivation for >>> suggesting this: To make certain that we have proper requirements >>> in place before we accept PX4 workflow into our repositories. We >>> need to do this right and I am willing to protect the repositories >>> until the workflow requirements are established. I expect that to >>> take about two weeks.) >>> * I would create a dev branch and expect all PRs to be against that >>> dev branch. >>> * As soon as the PPMC is confident that it has the processes in place >>> to handle the commit workload I will gladly relinquish this role. >>> * THIS IS NOT THE APACHE WAY. This is an interim dictatorship role to >>> expedite the avalanche of commits expected after the holidays. >>> >>> If any of this concerns people, please "Just Say No." I am not married >>> to the idea and I am not forcefully advocating it. This is what people >>> wanted me to do a few days ago and if I can protect our right to define >>> the workflow, then I will do it. For me it is a sacrifice that I would >>> take with no pleasure in. >>> >>> Pros: This will provide project continuity until the PPMC is fully >>> functional. Having workflow requirements will be a huge step in that >>> direction. People stressed about the commit process can relax with >>> confidence. This will protect the code base from premature work flow >>> changes until we have an understanding of what we want. No harm is done >>> by deferring workflow changes until we as a team are prepared to deal >>> with them. >>> >>> Cons: This is not the Apache way. People who are trying to bulldoze >>> the PX4 work flow into the repositories will hate the idea. Mentors >>> will hate the idea. An approach more consistent with the Apache way >>> would just be to let the chaos prevail. That is fine with me too as >>> long as we do not let PX4 advocates take away our group right to define >>> our own workflow. We can still just put all workflow changes on hold >>> until we have the requirements in hand. >>> >>> I am not pushing anything. Think about it and let me know what you >>> would like to do. >> I agree with this because it is premature to change the way we work >> before there is a documented workflow that helps us understand what to >> do. >> >> Over the next two weeks, we should focus on designing the top-down >> workflow. It doesn't have to be final and it doesn't have to be >> perfect. We can improve it over time. But right now it's not ready, >> so I appreciate Greg's offer to do that, while the workflow is prepared. >> >> Thanks to Greg and everyone, >> Nathan
