On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 03:49:31AM +0000, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 3 June 2012 09:46, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote: > If there are enough "Alice" developers, is it a possibility that Bob > > will never have a chance to get his commit in? > > > > All this requires, is that in the time it takes Bob to do 'git pull', > > Alice manages to do 'git push' again. > > > > Alice can thus deprive Bob of a fair chance to get his commit in. > > Bob becomes an unhappy developer and gives up. > > There's an easier solution here: > > Bob pushes to a branch or to a public repo ( ie: github ) , and then > contacts Alice ( or somebody else ) who pulls their changes into the > tree on their behalf. > > Its not "ideal" but better than nothing. And certainly better than > being stuck on SVN where this case is virtually guaranteed and with no > viable workarounds when it is encountered.
Kent, you did read Robin's email fully before commenting, right? ;) You just proposed 'merge lieutenants', which Robin already covered in the originating email of this thread: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f478e9cbb14feb01ad0771c5d24222c4.xml For the record, I'm against any form of merge lieutenant reliant on someone pulling shit in; automated (QA of some form) I'd be fine w/, although that's not simple machinery to slap into the proposals. While I do grok the potential issue of someone being a hog (specifically via blasting commit by commit rather than building up work locally, then pushing it in chunks), frankly... I'm not that concerned about it, and would rather deal w/ it if/when it occurs. The nature of our commits for the most part are standalone from others- that's not true of the kernel/mozilla, thus why I don't think their issues are necessarily ours. ~harring
