Steve Bennett wrote: > I find this bit of using git somewhat deflating. With SVN, I was able > to commit my changes into "the" repository. Although the changes > weren't immediately in the production release (fortunately), other > developers would immediately see them next time they did an update. > Perhaps it's irrational, but committing to "the" repository is a lot > more satisfying than publishing to my own private repository and > hoping that someone comes along and takes a look. > > Before: > svn commit > > After: > git commit > Email list > Andy, Richard, or someone (who are the code reviewers, anyway?) > reviews changes, optionally accepts.
The canonical version of P2 is that at github.com/systemed, so the "code reviewer" is principally me. Then, for the osm.org instance of P2, it's Tom's choice whether to deploy it or not. But this is the same as it's always been. But that's as it's always been - git just provides the structure around what we were doing anyway. As you say, "the changes weren't immediately in the production release (fortunately)". :) P2 has a strong sense of design and authorship, as do JOSM and osm.org itself. We don't accept any and every patch - that way would lie chaos. You don't have to do the whole "e-mail list" thing; you can send a pull request to my github account which says "hey! look! here's some code! why not take a look?". I see this and either think "yeah, that looks good", which means I simply press a button and merge it in; or "hmmm, that needs some more work", in which case I make a branch and work on it from there. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
