On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:28 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
Hi all,
back to the topic of commit access -- hopefully we can nail this down
soon.
As I said, the base rsyslog package (that's the core C code plus the C
modules) is currently managed via the integration manager workflow.
I strongly suggest that everyone not familiar with the principal git
workflows takes two minutes (really! not more) to read this one page (no
need to follow links):
http://git-scm.com/book/en/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows
In a nutshell, "integration manager" means that one person (me currently)
accepts and merges all patches. With the current patch volume, this is no
issue for me. Not even with an increasing workflow.
IMHO this mode has several advantages, among them is security of the code
base and *easier contribution* (contributors don't need to know precisely
which branch to patch - I often receive patches for master branch, which I
redirect to the apropriate "oldest" branch where they need to be applied -
but this is just an example).
<snip>
If we implement it, I would also still be accepting code contributions
directly (except if some Lieutenant does not want me to). That's
especially
important as probably I am the only one who works full-time on rsyslog
development. So in practice, it would boil down to writing a TEAM
readme-like file that simply explains who the Lieutenats are and how they
can be reached. We could (and probably should) extend that to some
important non-dev functions (like the folks who run the infrastructure).
I think the most important thing for now should be that all patches should
be sent to the list rather than being sent to any individuals.
That's a good point. I need to say, though, that not all patches go through
the list in any case. If I receive a decent patch, I try to make it easy
for the contributor and act on it. I think that's ok - but I wanted to
bring it up.
I think this is perfectly fine. I don't care how the patch arrives, I just want
to try and head off the problem of people sending patches to inboxes that aren't
going to be looked at.
so however the patch arrives, it should be processed, but the 'official'
documented mechanism should be to send the patch or pull request to the list (or
have github forward the pull request to the list)
David Lang
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE
THAT.
