| 1 |
On 03.07.2015 22:22, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> (Breaking the thread, because I believe this topic needs further |
| 3 |
> discussion). |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 03:39:31PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Are there still any plans to use a code review system like gerrit that |
| 7 |
>> will avoid merges, rebases etc. to the tree by just accepting and |
| 8 |
>> serializing patches? |
| 9 |
> Merges are a fact of life, they will be happening. |
| 10 |
> This was included on: |
| 11 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Rebases of already published commits must be avoided. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> But beyond that, the general discussion was that a code review system |
| 16 |
> was not in the immediate future... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> If the merge workflow becomes too problematic due to the high rate of |
| 19 |
> change, then we can revisit those systems, to take advantage of their |
| 20 |
> auto-merging functionality, but probably only in combination with the QA |
| 21 |
> testsuites. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Using a Code Review System and allowing direct commits are not mutually |
| 25 |
exclusive. |
| 26 |
If infra has got time to set it up, this could be an option in addition |
| 27 |
to direct commits for developers and we could make it obligatory (e.g. |
| 28 |
for the first month) for new developers. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
It would also allow proxied maintainers to commit to the tree more |
| 31 |
easily, as it will require just an additional ack by the proxy maintainer. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Manuel |
Archives