| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Göktürk Yüksek wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Ulrich Mueller: |
| 4 |
>> The devmanual is the one central place where our development |
| 5 |
>> workflow should be documented, not some random wiki page. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> If the most up-to-date information is on the wiki, constantly |
| 8 |
> updating devmanual to match the wiki creates unnecessary maintenance |
| 9 |
> burden. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The point is that any information that constitutes policy should be |
| 12 |
traceable, e.g. there should be a bug or a patch should be posted to |
| 13 |
the mailing lists. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Related to my point above, looks like the git workflow is still in |
| 16 |
> the process of making. I expect that some discussion will continue |
| 17 |
> to take place in the future. We can always fix the other parts of |
| 18 |
> the devmanual and come back to this. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I beg to differ. Apart from some small details, things have settled. |
| 21 |
Looking at the history of the wiki page, there was quite some activity |
| 22 |
in the two months following the switch to git, but very little after. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Is it possible to merge this changeset as is while the workflow |
| 25 |
> matures, or should I go for a round 3? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'd prefer a round 3, including Michael's suggestions at least. That |
| 28 |
is, include the "Commit message format" subsection from the wiki page |
| 29 |
(or even the "Commit policy" section; it is not much longer). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ulrich |
Archives