Yeah, I was under the impression this decision would require a vote and formal announcement, if it passes.
On Monday, July 28, 2014, Hugo Trippaers <h...@trippaers.nl> wrote: > Agreed, this kind of important decisions should be made by a vote. > > Sebastien, Daan, can one of you kick of the vote thread? Preferably with a > condensed summary of the thread? > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > > On 28 jul. 2014, at 14:07, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > +1 to what Erik said. > > > > > > On 28 July 2014 13:04, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> H, > >>> > >>> I see a lot of commits happening directly on the master branch. Yet > >>> there were no counter arguments against the proposed gitflow and the > >>> discussion around it. This leaves me with the idea that the thread is > >>> largely ignored by the community. It is my understanding that we > >>> agreed never to commit anything to master anymore that hasn't been > >>> first committed to a branch and is merged back to master (instead of > >>> cherry-picked). What mistake in thinking am I making here? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Not familiar with bylaws and the such, but wouldn't a change like this > >> require some sort of voting and potentially a more formal information? > >> > >> Requiring everyone to read through a 50+ replies mail thread and > comprehend > >> it could be a bit much. > >> > >> I would suggest an updated document that explain the expected workflow. > >> > >> -- > >> Erik > >> > > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
