On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:32:53PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:41:46PM -0700, Bryan Richter wrote: > > I think it's important to spread the responsibility for updating > > the master branch. Right now only two of us can do so: wolftune > > and myself. This can be considered one extreme of the > > right-to-push spectrum, and it's one that is used by a lot of > > projects. The other extreme is to give write access to everyone > > who submits a merge request, which is actually used (and > > recommended) by some teams. > > I don't really see anything wrong with the BDFL approach to things. > Could you maybe elaborate on what the potential problems are?
Honestly, it's fine right now. Every large project, however, has at least a few people who spend 100% of their time merging other people's code. We can take our time, but I'd like to deal with it proactively. > It seems to me like the second approach (allowing push access to a > lot of people) would lead to endless politics and people stepping on > each others' toes. Could be. It depends. It's an interesting problem. I am somewhat inspired by following along with stack's development, which followed the "just give everyone push permission" model. That model made it a lot easier to pass responsibility on a particular issue to the people who were actively engaged with it. There was still oversight, of course, but there was also a lot of empowerment and parallelism.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
