1 |
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 03:49:31AM +0000, Kent Fredric wrote: |
2 |
> On 3 June 2012 09:46, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> If there are enough "Alice" developers, is it a possibility that Bob |
4 |
> > will never have a chance to get his commit in? |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > All this requires, is that in the time it takes Bob to do 'git pull', |
7 |
> > Alice manages to do 'git push' again. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Alice can thus deprive Bob of a fair chance to get his commit in. |
10 |
> > Bob becomes an unhappy developer and gives up. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> There's an easier solution here: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Bob pushes to a branch or to a public repo ( ie: github ) , and then |
15 |
> contacts Alice ( or somebody else ) who pulls their changes into the |
16 |
> tree on their behalf. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Its not "ideal" but better than nothing. And certainly better than |
19 |
> being stuck on SVN where this case is virtually guaranteed and with no |
20 |
> viable workarounds when it is encountered. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
Kent, you did read Robin's email fully before commenting, right? ;) |
24 |
|
25 |
You just proposed 'merge lieutenants', which Robin already covered in |
26 |
the originating email of this thread: |
27 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f478e9cbb14feb01ad0771c5d24222c4.xml |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
For the record, I'm against any form of merge lieutenant reliant on |
31 |
someone pulling shit in; automated (QA of some form) I'd be fine w/, |
32 |
although that's not simple machinery to slap into the proposals. |
33 |
|
34 |
While I do grok the potential issue of someone being a hog |
35 |
(specifically via blasting commit by commit rather than building up |
36 |
work locally, then pushing it in chunks), frankly... I'm not that |
37 |
concerned about it, and would rather deal w/ it if/when it occurs. |
38 |
The nature of our commits for the most part are standalone from |
39 |
others- that's not true of the kernel/mozilla, thus why I don't think |
40 |
their issues are necessarily ours. |
41 |
|
42 |
~harring |