>>>>> Michael Raskin <[email protected]> writes: >> While I don't mind that we expand the number of people with commit access, >> I firmly oppose doing changes directly on master, any change should first >> be a PR. If there're more people who can close a PR, those PRs will be open >> for a shorter amount of time.
> Many people come and say that. The sad truth is that we lack the resources > to do development like that. Whatever the benefits of this approach, we > cannot afford the costs. > The low observed rate of PR merges means that we need people who do many > correct small updates to perform them directly on master for the project to > be able to actually accomplish something except the trivial updates. I entirely agree, Michael. As one of the people who commits directly to master, I have to say that if every small change/fix I wanted to make had to go through a PR, I'd contribute much less, simply due to lack of energy. John _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
