Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > I don't know why you think I want to impose bureaucratic controls.
when i read: > For the future, I propose that developers create a branch, and indicate > when it is ready to be merged with 'development' (i.e. to be committed > to trunk). After that, you and me decide when it merges into either > branch_20x or trunk-stable. it looks somewhat complicated compared to the current process of "svn ci" and check dev-list for echo. > Did I say that I want you to ask my permission before committing > something ? > Did I say you have to wait for my review ? no. but you are not enough verbose about the model so even my dumb brain gets it. it was written that only maintainer is expected to determine whats go into-stable trunk and what does not and that we will benefit from better review model so i naturally wonder what does it mean. > So, what if the person maintaining trunk-stable would be busy. > Why would you care when your feature gets merged exactly into > trunk-stable ? if its just the busy part from the clause then no. > Please read the other threads on what I do propose. i try to > > so it boils down to the question whether the movement of code through > > these layers is evoked by "this code didn't caused bugs yet" > > or by "please changes this this and that and when i'm happy/finished with > > review it can go". > > Well, it should not be too much to expect some proper code > before pushing it into the release. sometimes 'proper code' is personal taste and even professional coders do not agree between each other. so my question remains. > Did I say you need to ask permission ? Did I say you need to wait before > doing something ? ... > You somehow think that you need permission before pushing a feature ? one reading of "After that, you and me decide when it merges to trunk-stable" is like that. its actually connected to the question above and if i get it completely wrong, then sorry. > >> When using git, you have to create a new branch anyway > >> whenever you do some coding yourself, so that the original branch > >> can track the remote branch easily. > > > > no i can just stay in small-bugfixes branch, which will be automatically > > merged once a day. > > Such a branch is useless. why? > > so where is the trigger that small thing should be merged into the common > > tree? > > I don't know what you mean by the "common tree" ? If you mean merging >a feature into development, that would be the same as the trigger i see. pavel
