I am not advocating that we should follow git-flow. If you see my original [proposal], it has no mention of git-flow. I just felt that we are abusing git and put some points which could help us improve.
Git-flow is something which I liked and felt that it would make us treat git well. I am okay with any proposal which addresses those. I suggest not to discuss on this anymore. We had long discussions and still failed to reach consensus. lets put up a new one and I would be happy to vote. David/Alena/anyone else, Can you take this up and put a proposal for vote? [proposal] http://markmail.org/message/dawo4oannrdgpfgs On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > Agree with Daan. The first vote was needed to get the peoples opinions on > whether we need to change our current git model (we certainly do as there > are so many problems in the current flow), and the article was just the > point of reference on how other people do it on the field. Now we have to > see what exactly would benefit CS from this model, and what won’t be > applicable or useful at all. There are many software models, and what > suits one, might not be applicable to another. > > So only after all the questions are cleared out and the process is > documented, we should start the second vote. And I think we can’t change > the document after the vote has started; it makes previous voting > obsolete. Only after the second vote passes, we can start implementing it. > > > Thanks, > Alena. > > On 8/5/14, 11:05 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I don't think we should hold on improving our way of working just > >because it is not perfect yet. Some things are unclear so we can't do > >those. Other things are perfectly clear and need to wait for nothing > >else. That doesn't mean that a second vote isn't needed. It is if not > >for anything else then for making sure we all want to go in the same > >direction. I posted a lengthy reply on the vote thread to answer any > >concerns and provoke more discussion. Let's see if that breeds further > >ideas and then decide on a next phase/vote. > > > >makes sense? > > > >On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Rajani Karuturi > ><rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> For a proposal which got all +1’s[1] what are the next steps to do?? It > >>was made clear on the voting thread that required branching changes > >>would be done if the vote passes[2] > >> > >> Though the content in the document changed, the original proposal > >>hasn’t changed. Its still the same. > >> It is explained in details with all the commands and more details in > >>the wiki. Hence there is quite a bit of text changes. It is not a > >>diversion from what is already discussed. > >> > >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/h7nh6ozseien7ezh > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/u7k6wv5kslb4ysyn > >> > >> ~Rajani > >> > >> > >> > >> On 06-Aug-2014, at 12:56 am, David Nalley > >><da...@gnsa.us<mailto:da...@gnsa.us>> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Alena Prokharchyk > >> <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com<mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>> > >>wrote: > >> I think we should hold on with the git workflow implementation till all > >> the decisions on the items written by Leo, are discussed and finalized. > >> > >> The very beginning of ³git workflow vote² shows that the vote was just > >>to > >> get people opinion on the proposal. Before adopting it and cutting the > >> develop branch, all the questions should be cleared out. > >> > >> > >> I agree with Alena - the vote was framed as opinion, not adoption. > >> Moreover, the document voted on has been changed ~10 times since we > >> started the vote, and the differences are substantial: > >> > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageI > >>d=30738915&selectedPageVersions=32&selectedPageVersions=22 > >> > >> Agreement to do something and the following implementation are not > >> necessarily instantaneous. > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Daan > > -- ~Rajani
