On Friday, October 11, 2013 02:58:22 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 12:28 -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > This is only
> >> > good for running the code directly from the git checkout.
> >> 
> >> actually seems useful. We've had clearly broken commits go upstream,
> >> and if the author had been able to test from a git checkout we
> >> probably could have avoided that.
> > 
> > Which is why I made the rewrite code able to run from the checkout fully
> > and properly.  Just cd into the directory, run "source ./testpath" and
> > it's will run completely from the checkout.
> > 
> >> What I mean is that I don't want to turn down contributions from new
> >> developers because there's a big backlog of work that hasn't gone
> >> upstream.
> > 
> > I don't want to discourage others either.  It is just much better to
> > encourage some help on the rewrite in my opinion.
> 
> No, you should be moving patches that are reviewed and tested to
> master (which means rebasing on master and sending patches to the
> mailing list).
> 
> > Especially since
> > patches 2 & 3 have already been done in the rewrite branch.  Some of
> > patch 4 might have been done already, but likely not all.  If the
> > rewrite is to take over from the master branch...
> > 
> > The rewrite is not far from being able to take over as master.  There
> > are a few rebase errors in the rewrite-on-master you did.  There is some
> > cleanup work to do on the autoresume operation.  Then a little more
> > testing with the tree defaults relocated to ensure I haven't missed any
> > hard coding.
> 
> The development model on git is to make incremental changes that do
> not break things. I've been saying this for a while.
> 
> The code needs to be reviewed as well. Maybe Dylan, who has been
> cleaning up a lot of python code in another project, would be willing
> to help review as well.

I'd be more than happy to help review things. I've paged through the rewrite-
on-master branch a bit, and there's definately some good work going on there, 
but there are also so things that could be polished up a bit.

> 
> > The default tree location move is waiting on the catalyst rewrite code
> > to go live producing stages, etc..
> 
> I'm exactly sure what this means, but I think you might mean something
> like renaming master to old-master and your branch to master. That's
> not the right way to do it, and that's not how git works.