+1 PRs are much easier to work with, imo. On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <christ...@kaltepoth.de > wrote:
> Hey John, > > Great work! > > +1 ;) > > Christian > > 2016-07-23 18:14 GMT+02:00 Daniel Cunha <daniels...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi John, > > > > Greate job. I think that we really need to have that. It's much more easy > > and cool to work with PR. > > Easy way to review, easy way to fix changes, the contributor does not > need > > to attach a new patch just need to update the PR and we'll have feedbacks > > more fast with PR Builder Plugin and comments by line on PR. > > > > I prefer this way, totally agree with your PR. > > > > +1 :) > > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > > > I put together a first pass PR on an improved contributor workflow that > > can > > > leverage github PRs. This is in addition to our existing patch > approach. > > > > > > You can find the PR here, with the changes: > > > https://github.com/apache/deltaspike/pull/61/files > > > > > > Using PRs gives us a bit of an advantage: > > > > > > - We don't lose the original author in the commit > > > - We can run automated tests prior to the commit being merged in > > > > > > Please take a look, I'm happy to adjust as needed. I also took the > > liberty > > > to replace some of the to-be-retired links (e.g. people.a.o is retiring > > > soon, mail archives are being moved to pony, ICLA is now PDF based) > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Daniel Cunha > > https://twitter.com/dvlc_ > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > http://www.tomitribe.io > > > > > > -- > Christian Kaltepoth > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal > -- Jason Porter http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
