1 |
On Friday, October 11, 2013 02:58:22 PM Matt Turner wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 12:28 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> > This is only |
6 |
> >> > good for running the code directly from the git checkout. |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> actually seems useful. We've had clearly broken commits go upstream, |
9 |
> >> and if the author had been able to test from a git checkout we |
10 |
> >> probably could have avoided that. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Which is why I made the rewrite code able to run from the checkout fully |
13 |
> > and properly. Just cd into the directory, run "source ./testpath" and |
14 |
> > it's will run completely from the checkout. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> >> What I mean is that I don't want to turn down contributions from new |
17 |
> >> developers because there's a big backlog of work that hasn't gone |
18 |
> >> upstream. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > I don't want to discourage others either. It is just much better to |
21 |
> > encourage some help on the rewrite in my opinion. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> No, you should be moving patches that are reviewed and tested to |
24 |
> master (which means rebasing on master and sending patches to the |
25 |
> mailing list). |
26 |
> |
27 |
> > Especially since |
28 |
> > patches 2 & 3 have already been done in the rewrite branch. Some of |
29 |
> > patch 4 might have been done already, but likely not all. If the |
30 |
> > rewrite is to take over from the master branch... |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > The rewrite is not far from being able to take over as master. There |
33 |
> > are a few rebase errors in the rewrite-on-master you did. There is some |
34 |
> > cleanup work to do on the autoresume operation. Then a little more |
35 |
> > testing with the tree defaults relocated to ensure I haven't missed any |
36 |
> > hard coding. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> The development model on git is to make incremental changes that do |
39 |
> not break things. I've been saying this for a while. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> The code needs to be reviewed as well. Maybe Dylan, who has been |
42 |
> cleaning up a lot of python code in another project, would be willing |
43 |
> to help review as well. |
44 |
|
45 |
I'd be more than happy to help review things. I've paged through the rewrite- |
46 |
on-master branch a bit, and there's definately some good work going on there, |
47 |
but there are also so things that could be polished up a bit. |
48 |
|
49 |
> |
50 |
> > The default tree location move is waiting on the catalyst rewrite code |
51 |
> > to go live producing stages, etc.. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> I'm exactly sure what this means, but I think you might mean something |
54 |
> like renaming master to old-master and your branch to master. That's |
55 |
> not the right way to do it, and that's not how git works. |