Re: Work Branches
Hey Ben and developers, On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:11 PM Ben Cooksley wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently we had a discussion (which I think may have ended up spread > over a couple of mailing lists in the end) concerning branches and the > ability to force push to them. > > Current policy forbids force pushing to branches except in very > limited circumstances (essentially where it is the only option to fix > a branch) > > The discussion ended with two ways forward, but no 100% clear > consensus on which way we want to go forward. The two proposed ways > were: > 1) Only protect 'master' and declared 'stable' branches. > 2) Protect all branches, aside from a given prefix (proposed to be work/) > > I'd like to clean this up and sort out the policy we want to have > surrounding this so we can move forward. > > From my perspective i'd rather we go with Option 2, as this will be > the approach that will be easier to both implement and maintain in the > long term and be the least likely to cause collaboration problems (as > the branch naming conventions will be universal across all our > repositories). > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Ben Cooksley > KDE Sysadmin > We in the CWG have been in discussions about this too, since there have been some people trying to force-push even after being warned by the system and sysadmin. I see that there seems to be consensus about proposal 2. My question is how will this be documented and then how do we spread the word? Our devel announce list does not seem to be as well-read as it should be. Perhaps the new policy can be linked to the Manifesto or even added to it? Valorie -- http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
Re: Work Branches
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019, 10:11 PM Ben Cooksley wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently we had a discussion (which I think may have ended up spread > over a couple of mailing lists in the end) concerning branches and the > ability to force push to them. > > Current policy forbids force pushing to branches except in very > limited circumstances (essentially where it is the only option to fix > a branch) > > 2) Protect all branches, aside from a given prefix (proposed to be work/) > In view of the fact that other may also be working on the code this seems best.
Re: Work Branches
El dissabte, 5 d’octubre de 2019, a les 4:11:11 CEST, Ben Cooksley va escriure: > Hi all, > > Recently we had a discussion (which I think may have ended up spread > over a couple of mailing lists in the end) concerning branches and the > ability to force push to them. > > Current policy forbids force pushing to branches except in very > limited circumstances (essentially where it is the only option to fix > a branch) > > The discussion ended with two ways forward, but no 100% clear > consensus on which way we want to go forward. The two proposed ways > were: > 1) Only protect 'master' and declared 'stable' branches. > 2) Protect all branches, aside from a given prefix (proposed to be work/) Yeah we discussed this at Akademy and i talked with some other people and they all agreed 2) was the way to go if it made things easier for everyone. I know i promised you i'd write this email and i failed, sorry about that :/ So yeah, a few +1 for solution 2) Cheers, Albert > > I'd like to clean this up and sort out the policy we want to have > surrounding this so we can move forward. > > From my perspective i'd rather we go with Option 2, as this will be > the approach that will be easier to both implement and maintain in the > long term and be the least likely to cause collaboration problems (as > the branch naming conventions will be universal across all our > repositories). > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Ben Cooksley > KDE Sysadmin >
Re: Work Branches
On Saturday, 5 October 2019 04:11:11 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote: > 2) Protect all branches, aside from a given prefix (proposed to be work/) +1 for a simple and clear policy. [ade] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Work Branches
On Saturday, 5 October 2019 04:11:11 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently we had a discussion (which I think may have ended up spread > over a couple of mailing lists in the end) concerning branches and the > ability to force push to them. > > Current policy forbids force pushing to branches except in very > limited circumstances (essentially where it is the only option to fix > a branch) > > The discussion ended with two ways forward, but no 100% clear > consensus on which way we want to go forward. The two proposed ways > were: > 1) Only protect 'master' and declared 'stable' branches. > 2) Protect all branches, aside from a given prefix (proposed to be work/) > > I'd like to clean this up and sort out the policy we want to have > surrounding this so we can move forward. > > From my perspective i'd rather we go with Option 2, as this will be > the approach that will be easier to both implement and maintain in the > long term and be the least likely to cause collaboration problems (as > the branch naming conventions will be universal across all our > repositories). > > Thoughts? +1, sounds good to me :) Thanks, Volker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
