Le 31/05/2016 à 12:41, Gilles a écrit : > Are you positive that people will not continue updating "master"?
Well that depends on the modification pushed: - for trivial changes like updating the version of a maven plugin there is no point creating a feature branch, it can be committed directly on the trunk/master. - for simple fixes that don't change the API and come with a good test case, here again a direct commit on master is easier. - for more complex changes involving design decisions, a feature branch is a good idea (unless a clear consensus was reached first on the mailing list). Note that GitHub pull requests are implicitly feature branches, even if they are committed on the master branch of the cloned repository. So my view of what can be committed directly to the master branch really applies to the Apache Commons committers. > Or are we going to assume that all future contributors will come > through Github? That would change the perspective, I agree. GitHub has normalized the contribution process to open source projects, so I wouldn't be surprised if an increasing share of contributions come from GitHub in the future. > People (not me) advocated going in that direction, such as using > the Github forum tools rather than this ML to discuss issues. I'm not advocating that though, and GitHub doesn't offer forums or mailing lists anyway. > Singularly, I find this issue not the most urgent to deal with > as far as Commons Math is concerned! > [Especially when not only consensus was reached on this workflow > but unanimity!] I agree this isn't urgent, I was just reacting to the commit reversal. Emmanuel Bourg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
