Pascal Wittmann <pascalwittm...@gmx.net> writes: > On 01/18/2015 06:19 PM, Nathan Bijnens wrote: >> 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. > > What is the advantage? IMO this would create an enormous overhead. E.g. > I just updated abiword from 3.0.0 to 3.0.1 and only changed the version > number and hash. Is this worth a pull request? I don't want to merge > those pull requests, they only cover the discussion-worthy pull requests.
I totally agree here: Simple version-updates, fixes, (simple) new packages, etc. should go into master/staging without a PR. We can still create pull requests for bigger changes and/or controversial ideas.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
