On Thursday 25 March 2010 20:39:50 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> It has been suggested, after various troubles recently with code cleanup
> patches, that a more traditionally git like workflow might work better -
> where fewer people have direct access to the repository and most
> contributors create a fork on github and then ask for it to be merged.
Finally. ;)
> On the other hand, while network-wise it would be more decentralised,
> work-wise it would be more centralised: Code would not go in unless I (or
> another trusted core dev) merged it into the main repository.
That process is called ?reviewing? and replaces all the ?-official?
repositories. The reviewed code should not be in its own repository, it should
merely be a branch. Whether it?s a branch called something like ?stable? that
lags behind master or whether ?master? is the reviewed branch and we only work
in ?next? or ?pu? (?proposed updates,? stolen from git.git) is entirely up to
us.
David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100325/7f291c08/attachment.pgp>
