skaller wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 13:37 -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > >> it's >>just a matter to publish the patches (a good PQM will do that for you) >>and let the others branch' maintainers do the merge when necessary. > > > Publishing patches is a serious pain in the backside > and a huge impediment to cooperation. I would never bother > to do any serious work that way. Committing directly is the > only effective way. >
I'm not sure that you understood my point. The contributor with skills should commit into his own branch, the joe contributor should be allowed do it by other way. The way kernel hackers handle this corner case today is by mail. There is only one PQM and i think it is a "next step". We just could do it first. "publishing patches" aren't a serious pain since the debian BTS and the "patch" tag works well in a lot of cases, not the one that is on the table here. There are downsides of a PQM to cover "joe contributors", one of them being the lazyness of real branch maintainers. It is like Jeff Garzik (libata maintainer) just stopped accepting patches by mail and only merging from people using git, like him. My suggestion was go a step further into that "by mail" approach using a patch queue manager. Same deal to the contributor - mail something, more organization but the same work for branch maintainers - everyone can see individual patches (yes, a ML like lkml works in a similar way but with noise). Best regards, Gustavo Franco - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
