you don't need a formal vote (= 72h waiting time) in any case. for sure we need to discuss every part of the api (also the parts of the initial import). (for such cases a formal vote is just needed if there is no agreement.)
@feature branches: if we need to discuss ideas which are prototyped, we can follow [1]. -> you don't get tons of branches and merge-commits, but you have most of the benefits. @github: it used to be a read-only mirror. just fyi: history-rewrites of pushed commits are restricted regards, gerhard [1] http://deltaspike.apache.org/suggested-git-workflows.html#discussion-workflow-optional 2014-11-27 10:21 GMT+01:00 Anatole Tresch <[email protected]>: > The project is also mirrored to GH, i did not check if it is writable from > the mirror as well, but if so wecan benefit from the GH infrstructure...? > > - > Anatole Tresch > Glärnischweg 10 > 8620 Wetzikon > Tel +41 (43) 317 05 30 > - > Send from Mobile > > > Am 27.11.2014 um 10:14 schrieb "Oliver B. Fischer" < > [email protected]>: > > > > I agree on the quality aspect and that the hard part of Tamaya will be > the discussion. Only my personal experience with feature branches is not so > positive. I know it works for a lot of people and even for a lot of > projects at GitHub and at Bitbucket. Such plattforms provide tooling > support we don't have. Or do we? > > > > Bye, > > > > Oliver > > > > -- > > N Oliver B. Fischer > > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany > > P +49 30 44793251 > > M +49 178 7903538 > > E [email protected] > > S oliver.b.fischer > > J [email protected] > > X http://xing.to/obf > > >
