incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [REQUEST] Update on using git
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:55:36 GMT
Note: I don't mean to put this on Bob. Anyone could drive this. But I do
think it needs a driver. Bob, Randall, and Dirkjan all seem to have the
most detailed thoughts on the subject, so I suggest one you might be in the
best position.

And to clarify: someone disagreeing with you isn't a blocker. We're aiming
for discussion-lead decision-making. Feel free to supply the
"decision-making" that compliments the "discussion-lead" part. ;)


On 4 June 2013 22:36, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Odd way to phrase it. Alternative proposals should not be
> a destructive part of the process. The goal here is to generate ideas, toss
> out the ones that don't work, pick your favourite, and drive consensus on
> it.
>
> So, there are two possible ways I can see this unfolding:
>
>  * Everyone agrees with you that the git-flow stuff is not needed, in
> which case, great. Work everyone's comments in to the original proposal,
> and then move it from DISCUSS to VOTE.
>
>  * There is still some disagreement about what we want to do. In this
> case, I agree, we do not have consensus. (I wouldn't describe this as
> a destruction of coherency. Instead: productive discussion!) The next
> step forward in this instances is to drive that discussion, and hopefully
> come out with a proposal that most people like.
>
> I note that Randal posted several mails, and so did Dirkjan. But nobody
> has responded to them. A good way to kick this off again would be to
> respond to those points, I think.
>
> I would love to drive this, but I can't, mostly because I have no idea
> what I'm talking about when it comes to Git. ;)
>
>
> On 4 June 2013 19:03, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Heh, if I felt I could conclude that thread I would have done so
>> already. We had a reasonably well described approach at one point and
>> coherency was destroyed by a late appearance of the git-flow
>> alternative.
>>
>> B.
>>
>>
>> On 4 June 2013 18:43, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> > This thread is concluded. :) I meant the "[DISCUSS] Git workflow"
>> thread.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2013 18:41, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What's not concluded in this thread?
>> >>
>> >> B.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4 June 2013 18:04, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > Bob, are you able to help drive the Git thread to conclusion? We
>> need to
>> >> > clarify this and document it. Think a lot people are confused right
>> now
>> >> > since it seems everything is in the air.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 31 May 2013 16:51, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> master, as usual, and the x.y.z branches (for backports). All other
>> >> >> branches should be feature or fix branches we've not deleted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> B.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 31 May 2013 16:47, Wendall Cada <wendallc@apache.org>
wrote:
>> >> >> > I'm fairly well versed in using git and different workflows,
>> rebase,
>> >> etc.
>> >> >> > However, I'm utterly confused as to how I might contribute
>> changes to
>> >> >> > couchdb, what branches are relevant, etc. Is there documentation
>> for
>> >> >> this,
>> >> >> > or a clear summary of decisions made?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wendall
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > NS
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > NS
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS
>



-- 
NS

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message