On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:12:29PM +0200, hasufell wrote: > On 08/11/2015 03:52 PM, Patrice Clement wrote: > > Hi there > > > > According to > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model, > > "there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches > > etc". As far as I understand, it means I can go and create my own branch on > > the > > main repository and push it and it gets spread all over the place. Is that > > correct? > > > > Could someone explain to me the rationale behind this decision? > > > > Truth to be told, I kinda dislike the fact any developer can do this. > > > > proj/gentoo should be kept for "serious business" i.e. commits that affects > > the > > tree. On the long run, if everybody goes down that road, we will see > > flourish > > numerous branches (who said unmaintained?), all stalled at a different > > state of > > the main repo, and it will only generate a lot of noise and confusion for > > nothing. Further, since we've moved over to git, the main tree now gets > > replicated to github and we all have github accounts here, don't we? Which > > makes > > the whole forking and submitting PRs a cinch. > > > > If a developer wants to tinker with the tree, he can fork it to its github > > devspace, fiddle around, and later on send us a PR back with his changes to > > merge. > > > > Branches can still make sense, even if the model is that everyone has > his own fork, see > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > for an example. > > I currently don't see a reason to limit the workflow to one master branch. > > It doesn't necessarily generate noise or confusion and there are various > ways to only fetch specific branches if you really need to do so. Git's > main advantage _are_ branches and it has sufficient methods to deal with > a lot of them. > > If they cause trouble, we can still prune them and enforce stricter > rules, but since we don't even know how they will be used, this point is > moot yet. I'm with mgorny and hasufell on this; I'm not worried about regulating branches that much.
Also, since we have our own tree on g.g.o, the tree on github is a mirror, so we should treat it as such, e.g. it could go down at any point, and if it does, we can keep working based on our official tree. There's even a way in git itself to do something like a github pull request (see the git request-pull command), so we don't need to rely on github for that. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
