The model I see out there tends to look like: - Edward is in charge of the codebase - he approves "lieutenants" who can merge into trunk - the rest of us issue pull requests, Edward or a lieutenant approves or denies
I think I have commit permission, but I'd rather not commit, but generate a pull request instead: = an implicit code review (ie: passing the buck :) So, I cloned trunk, then pushed this to http://github.com/ktenney If do work I'd like in core, I issue a pull request from my repo, someone else says 'looks ok, I'll merge it' ... or they say 'look at this other (better) way to do it' For others, more comfortable with core than myself, the 2 stage process probably isn't desirable, for me it offers some assurance I'm not breaking things, and the opportunity to get feedback on my work. Thanks, Kent On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. No change needed here > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Jacob Peck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2/14/2014 7:52 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: >>> >>> Should we restrict access to the git repo? Your thoughts, please. >>> >>> Edward >>> >> Define 'restrict access'. As it stands now, only those in the >> 'leo-editor' organization have write access. We could change that, but it's >> currently in the same state it was over on bzr/launchpad, with a lower user >> count. >> >> If, for example, we changed it so that only you had write access, I feel >> like development would stagnate, as we'd need your approval to push things >> like plugins, quick bugfixes, etc. I think, from experience with other >> projects, that having a single person with absolute control over a repo >> leads to significant delays in getting new code in master. >> >> A middle ground would be, say, four or five developers with write access >> to master, and everyone else works with pull requests... but I kind of >> dislike that idea too... >> >> Leo isn't, in my opinion, an unstable piece of software that would benefit >> from the walled garden approach. The day-to-day state of the code in the >> repo is perfectly stable for power-users (due to the extensive unit tests >> and such), and often has important bugfixes that the previous release >> version doesn't. I think the relatively open approach to handling repo >> permissions on launchpad has contributed to this, and I can't imagine >> walling of Leo's git repo would have a positive effect. >> >> Just my $0.02. >> >> -->Jake >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "leo-editor" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "leo-editor" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
