On Aug 19, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 19, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > >> Hi Sebastien, >> >> On 19-Aug-2014, at 10:17 pm, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The fact that we basically have none, pushes me to argue for a change in >>> git workflow (see several other threads). because it will be way faster to >>> start "gating" commits using a new agreed upon workflow (even though it >>> would be a very artificial gate) than waiting for CI. >> >> I would love to know your experience of using Github pull requests for the >> ACS doc repos, and if it will be a good idea to use it for the main repo as >> well? > > Using github pr for the docs repo has been a breeze. Of course it's a totally > different "code" than cloudstack. > > The way this work is that people is that people fork on github and submit pr, > we turned on github pr notifications (you have seen some of the emails). We > don't merge via github though, we pull the patch by hand and apply it "git > am" then push.
Cool. Just want to point out that this gives the committer a _bit_ more responsibility to verify that there is an actual Contribution (as per the apache license and/or CLA) being done. When someone sends a patch via e-mail or to an apache.org system that’s pretty clearly implied, but for github, you do have to pay a little bit of attention [1]. Also note you can do pull requests without github, see `git request-pull --help`. Of course the UI isn’t as pretty, but I’d suggest allowing it just to deal with “zomg github is down”, and to be ready to receive any future patches from Linus [2] :-) cheers, Leo [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156 [2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674
