With Nathan's workflow on another thread, DavidS's workflow early in
this thread, Nathan's workflow on this thread, Nathan's workflow with my
appended workflow, and Justin's comments ... Do we have enough to define
an initial workflow? I think so. Some of it is a little inconsistent
(but not wildly so), some has a little longer lead time like a reliable
beautifier and hardware/simulator in loop testing, but I think it is
generally resolvable over time. Do you think we have enough to put
together a straw man work flow and get consensus on it?
We should not discuss or consider any git/github implementation at this
time. We should have just a clean, simple list of English sentences
that describe what the workflow is. I propose that we get consensus
through a less formal vote of the PPMC (binding) and we should also hear
what everyone else thinks in the list (non-binding).
Who wants to summarize and call the vote? I would like to see some
volunteer from the other, less vocal members of the PPMC. We need to
get everyone on board.
I think I should specifically stand back and let it happen.
Once we have nailed the workflow, then it will be the time talk git and
github topics to generate the top-level design. You can then all
'break-a-leg' with git discussions! The top-level design (e.g., how
many repositories, for example) should be subject to consensus as well,
I think. But let's let the implementers have a more-or-less free hand
with the detailed design.
Thoughts?
Greg
On 12/18/2019 3:51 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
I can +1 on most of them, but isn't correct that the PPMC will need to all
agree on these?
There need to reach consensus, that doesn’t mean all need to 100% agree but all
are OK with the proposed workflow.
When they wish to contribute, they can do so:
* Via a pull request
* Via a patch transmitted to us by some method
Is this an ASF edict?
Nope we don’t care how contributions come in, some project may have their own
requirments. But for significant contributions we do like people to sign an
ICLA, and once they are a committer an ICLA is needed.
Thanks,
Justin
