On 5/4/10 12:58 AM, "Werner LEMBERG" <w...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> This is a serious question I'd like to ask you. If you were the
>>> king of LilyPond, what would you establish as the workflow? I'd
>>> really like to hear your opinion.
>>
>> I'd not prohibit any work flow that can be maintained with
>> single-line git commands. That includes posting patch series (using
>> git-format-patch and git-mail) and private and public branches.
>> There are graphical tools for dealing with git branches and commits,
>> there is Emacs. The established development environment for
>> Lilypond already is a GNU/Linux machine (even if it is a virtual
>> one), so the usual caveats about git workflows on Windows machines
>> don't apply.
>
> This basically boils down to give much more interested people write
> access to the git repository under the premise that noone should apply
> non-trivial changes to the trunk but create branches instead which can
> then be merged after review and approval. People who don't follow the
> rules will lose write access.
>
> I don't object to it; I'm even in favour of such a solution. It's
> trivial to make remote git branches appear in a local repository
> clone, and you don't have to fiddle around with applying the patches
> during review since you can easily switch forth and back between the
> branches.
I like the thought of just switching to another developer's branch to
review, instead of creating my own branch, applying the patch, and then
testing.
But I also really like the side-by-side review with inlined comments that
Rietveld offers.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
