On Nov 11, 1:57 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also - I know you're very enthused about Git and GitHub, but Django > uses SVN as the canonical store for trunk and branches, and this isn't > likely to change in the near future.
Thank you, but no, I'm not enthused about git and GitHub per se :) -- I'm enthused that it's possible to maintain patches and collaborate remotely with less agony by utilizing them. Please let's be friendly and relaxed -- I was just asking how do people plan to manage things. SVN is fine as well, but it puts the burden of integrating work on core. It's not the tool, but the goal that matters. As far as I understand, that's one of the issues we are trying to solve -- integrating contributors' work faster than core is able to. Good for core and good for the contributors. > As I have said to you in the past - if you want to make your > contribution to Django to be a DVCS repository that acts as a staging > area for trunk-ready patches, that would be a very helpful > contribution. This is doubly true during a sprint - sprints generate a > lot of activity, so having good lieutenants to triage contributions is > extremely useful. Done, http://github.com/django-mq/django-mq . I'm willing to regularly review pull requests and add collaborators who are willing to do the same. But there's the problem that I'm not Andy Morton -- considering my karma, I'm in no position in regard to my "social capital" to lieutenant this. > The important part is *not* the documentation of this process. The > important part is *doing the work*. > > Key phrase: Do it. Not write an essay about how you would do it, and > then enter into a debate about whether the workflow that you have > proposed is optimal. Do the work, then tell a core dev that you have > done the work. Fix the patch if required. Rinse. Repeat. Wasn't the fact that it isn't and can't be that easy the main problem we discussed in the angst-thread? That core is too overburdened and small in numbers to oversee >1800 open tickets? Doing the work is usually easy, integration and avoiding staleness is not. As for "don't write essays" -- some traction is needed behind the initiative and good coordination with core so that the contributions start eventually flowing from the repo back to the trunk. Few or no people will use the repo unless there's a general consensus that it's a good thing. That consensus can only come from clear understanding of it's purpose and workflow (the "essays") -- only then can people start contributing. Otherwise they will feel that it's a waste of their time on an obscure fringe thing. All in all, I think that we are not really on different positions regarding this, it's just the karma issue that spoils the soup :) So be it, I'll just try to keep my mouth shut. Best, Mart Sõmermaa --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
