On 5 November 2016 at 08:33, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Now that we've converted to GitHub, I am automatically receiving emails about
> each pull request submitted to the MacPorts repositories, and each comment
> that's made on them. I've tried to participate in some of those, providing
> feedback
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Sterling Smith wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:50AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-04 18:10, Ivan Larionov wrote:
>>
>>> * Ability to get a feedback / review from other project members.
>>>
>>> We use
On 2016-11-5 06:14 , Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Nov 4, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Sterling Smith wrote:
In the past, I have seen responses to svn changelogs directed to the committer
and copied to the dev list,
I expect that to continue to be the case.
so apparently port
On Nov 4, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Sterling Smith wrote:
> In the past, I have seen responses to svn changelogs directed to the
> committer and copied to the dev list,
I expect that to continue to be the case.
> so apparently port maintainers who are committers are not always
On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:50AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 18:10, Ivan Larionov wrote:
>
>> * Ability to get a feedback / review from other project members.
>>
>> We use private github setup on my work and we have a rule that you
>> shouldn't commit directly to
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Clemens Lang wrote:
>
>> * Using the same change methods as outside contributors may help to
>> develop better PR flow.
I am not particularly interested in accommodating contributors' workflow
expectations for their own sake. Their workflows may
On 2016-11-04 18:10, Ivan Larionov wrote:
> I'm not saying that you have to wait for review or something like
> this, but opening a PR from your branch and then merging it has some
> pros:
>
> * Better visibility of changes. Instead of cloning full repository
> and digging through history I can
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:10:44AM -0700, Ivan Larionov wrote:
> I think this is a good practice for port maintainers with write access
> to repository still use PRs instead of direct commits to master.
I agree, with some limitations:
> * Better visibility of changes. Instead of cloning
I think this is a good practice for port maintainers with write access to
repository still use PRs instead of direct commits to master.
I'm not saying that you have to wait for review or something like this, but
opening a PR from your branch and then merging it has some pros:
* Better