Hi,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:00:03PM +0200, Samuli Seppänen wrote:
> So something like this at first:
>
> http://users.utu.fi/sjsepp/openvpn/process_contributing_to_openvpn.png
>
> ... and later this:
>
> http://users.utu.fi/sjsepp/openvpn/process_contributing_to_openvpn_2.png
This makes sense to me. Especially since there is well-defined feedback
to the patch author what will happen with his work.
> The second process avoids unnecessary bottlenecks. Perhaps we could also
> have separate "experimental", "unstable" or "feature-testing" trees
> maintained by other people. The code from these would then flow into the
> main development tree. I believe these trees could we managed with Git
> even if the main development branch is in SVN.
The nice thing about git is that people can very easily do "experimental
branches" in their own repository, giving access to testers, without
having to have write access to SVN.
OTOH, the VCS used is just a tool to help the process, and not the
primary goal :-) - so I'm definitely not going to be religious about
git or svn or cvs or...
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
