On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Matthew Dawson <matt...@mjdsystems.ca> wrote: > On December 25, 2014 08:21:05 PM Ben Cooksley wrote: >> > The way I see it, there are two reasonable alternatives with the current >> > setup: >> > >> > 1) Everybody can create, delete and force-push to all branches except the >> > "reserved" ones (kde/*, master, stable,... see the list). >> > >> > 2) People are free to create, delete and force-push to all branches below >> > my/$username/ (in my case, tat would be my/jkt/foo for example). Only repo >> > owners can create, delete and force-push to arbitrary branch names. >> >> In essence, yes - those are the two possible options we have. >> Force pushing will *still* be prohibited under this proposal as it >> stands (and would be a CoC violation if done). >> >> > Deciding which of these to use should be just a matter of style. Both seem >> > very sensible to me, and they will definitely present an improvement over >> > the current status where people can create, but not cleanup afterwards. >> >> Agreed. Can we have a show of hands / etc as to which one would suit >> people best? >> >> I will add a 3rd possibility though. >> >> 3) People are free to create and delete to all branches below work/*. >> Creation and deletion of branches outside this would be limited to >> project admins (release managers). It also allows other developers to >> cleanup as needed so it doesn't all fall on the repository admin / >> sysadmin. > I think a combination of 2 + 3 are best. 3 is the best for doing > collaborative work, where force pushes are not welcome. As Thomas says, its > simple and keeps most important branches protected. > > However, I think 2 should be included, if and only if a developer gains the > ability to force push into their personal branches. When working , a > developer may want to revise the history as development progress, but before > moving it into a collaborative zone. This makes it easy for developers to > work closer to the main repository without pushing the code elsewhere, > allowing other developers to quickly see how something is progressing. > > If force pushes are something that KDE does not want to allow, then I think > doing just 3 is best. I had thought they were disallowed to prevent people > doing bad things on important branches. I think for branches specifically > listed as personal branches, allowing force pushes would be OK with the CoC, > as developers can continue to monitor progress on a given branch. > -- > Matthew
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Support for proposal #3 seems fairly universal from what I can see - so we'll go ahead and implement that. Unfortunately allowing force pushes is an extremely messy business with the hooks - so we're unable to do this (for maintenance reasons among others). Thanks, Ben
