> On 7. Apr 2019, at 12:47, Florian Dold <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own namespaces >> including committing code that does not compile (e.g. for their gnunet.git >> forks). >> However, in order to get it into the "main" gnunet project codebase, the CI >> must pass for the respective pull request and I would argue that 1-2 "main" >> devs should sign off on the commit (this allows us to control the CAA issue >> a bit). >> Then, things like 0.11.1 and 0.11.2 will not happen anymore and devs still >> have the freedom to commit their current work even if does not compile. > > I'm still not convinced. Everybody can already use their own branches > even right now to commit code that doesn't compile. > > Do we even have enough "main devs" to make it feasible to require 1-2 > gatekeeper sign-offs for every commit? What if somebody is on vacation? > What about experimental subsystems like RPS? Is there anybody else > than grothoff who would have the domain knowledge to sign off commits on > RPS for ch3?
As I said in another mail you are fighting windmills here. Given that we have a mandatory CAA, that is where the gatekeepers come in anyway. And the problems you claim here are also exiting there. And regarding domain knowledge: It doesn't matter. Code review is more than just functionality. It is QA. > > I'm worried that this will lead to a balkanization of the project, where > everybody just works on their own branch, because some want to make > integrating changes into master so tedious. It'll also make more > sweeping changes and refactoring much harder to pull off. > > Once we grow really big, we can do all this. Great if we already have > the infrastructure partially in place. Then we can even have some core > repo with a lot of gate keeping. But for the current situation, that's > just overkill and does more harm than good IMHO. We already have and need gatekeeping. And as you already said above, everybody can already work on their own branch. > > GNUnet should be fun and anarchy, not bureaucracy and gatekeeping. > I really don't want to repeat myself but you really don't see the point. > - Florian >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
