> Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:00:03PM +0200, Samuli Seppänen wrote: > >> So something like this at first: >> >> http://users.utu.fi/sjsepp/openvpn/process_contributing_to_openvpn.png >> >> ... and later this: >> >> http://users.utu.fi/sjsepp/openvpn/process_contributing_to_openvpn_2.png >> > > This makes sense to me. Especially since there is well-defined feedback > to the patch author what will happen with his work. > > >> The second process avoids unnecessary bottlenecks. Perhaps we could also >> have separate "experimental", "unstable" or "feature-testing" trees >> maintained by other people. The code from these would then flow into the >> main development tree. I believe these trees could we managed with Git >> even if the main development branch is in SVN. >> > > The nice thing about git is that people can very easily do "experimental > branches" in their own repository, giving access to testers, without > having to have write access to SVN. > > OTOH, the VCS used is just a tool to help the process, and not the > primary goal :-) - so I'm definitely not going to be religious about > git or svn or cvs or... > > gert > Ok, we can test the processes and adjust as necessary. James needs to take the initiative here.
-- Samuli Seppänen Community Manager OpenVPN Technologies, Inc irc freenode net: mattock
