Do we really have to do some sharing in what we did in the past to get each others trust or something? I really do not care about egos and stuff like that. Focus and get things done please... politics are another matter right?
Apache: please tell us which milestones are set? over 2 weeks nuttx.apache.org has content? We can contribute in patches? Test strategy is set? Jira is up? There is a strategy how Nuttx gets over 100 commiters in 6 months? Etc etc? I thing focus is the key.... Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > Op 18 dec. 2019 om 23:31 heeft Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > 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
