compnerd added inline comments. ================ Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:167 @@ +166,3 @@ +with the limited number of developers whose job will be to mainly merge +thousands of patches a day. + ---------------- rengolin wrote: > compnerd wrote: > > I don't fully understand how this is any different from today. We have a > > core set of developers with commit access. Others are encouraged to > > provide patches via email (or may use phabricator depending on the > > reviewer). Once reviewed and accepted, one of the core developers still > > commits the change. I just see this as a process change. > > > > The person forks the repository on github, and creates a branch, and then a > > PR. The PR is reviewed and once accepted, merged by one of the core > > developers. It even implicitly handles authorship tracking which has > > currently been done in an adhoc fashion via the commit message. > Today we all commit to SVN, which is linear. In GitHub, we'll be committing > to git. If we can have hooks forbidding merges, it'll remain linear, but then > pull requests will be blocked. Additional hooks will need to be in place > (please suggest all of them here and I'll update the doc). I think that we should aim to preserve the linearity of history. This would mean that we block non-fastforward commits (i.e. no merges, no force pushes).
Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
