below mail landed in the wrong thread. wanted to post on the git flow vote thread. Will post again on that thread for the folks following it.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > -- ~Rajani
