Hi Nathan
On Thursday, January 2, 2020, Nathan Hartman
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 7:27 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis
> wrote:
>
>> HI Nathan,
>>
>> On 1/1/20, Nathan Hartman wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:14 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis <
acas...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 1/1/20,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 7:27 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis
wrote:
> HI Nathan,
>
> On 1/1/20, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:14 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis >
> > wrote:
> >> On 1/1/20, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >> > * Brennan has done the Confluence pages, investigated Jira, create
HI Nathan,
On 1/1/20, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:14 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis
> wrote:
>> On 1/1/20, Gregory Nutt wrote:
>> > * Brennan has done the Confluence pages, investigated Jira, create
>> > the
>> > initial workflow page
>> > * Nathan have been staying busy
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:14 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote:
> On 1/1/20, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> > * Brennan has done the Confluence pages, investigated Jira, create the
> > initial workflow page
> > * Nathan have been staying busy with the workflow
> > * Abdelatif has been working a lot
I want to help reviewing the patches and be guided by you to do it well.
Thanks, Alan!
Imagine if we all tried to dispose on one PR per day. That would be
eleven PRs per day, 77 PRs per week, week could keep up with things
without stressing anyone.
Of course, it will be even easier when
Hi Greg,
On 1/1/20, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> We need to reset the conversation because it has gotten so far off track
> that the point has been completely lost. We need to pay attention and
> not get distracted by the shiny objects.
>
> Repeating:
>
> > > Would it make sense, then, to begin a tran
Sorry, I misunderstand that you suggest this will be the new workflow.
Okay. No problem. Although I did feel like I was being attacked from
all sides for just trying to make to progress.
All discussion of the new workflow is happening here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NU
We need to reset the conversation because it has gotten so far off track
that the point has been completely lost. We need to pay attention and
not get distracted by the shiny objects.
Repeating:
> > Would it make sense, then, to begin a transition period now? That is,
> > start a gradual move
Hi,
> I don't appreciate a lot of advice and criticism from people who contribute
> nothing to this process.
>
I would try to assume good intent from the people who responded here. You want
people to contribute and grow the community,
Thanks,
Justin
Sorry, I misunderstand that you suggest this will be the new workflow.
I agree that before the new process is ready, your process should continue
as before since you have most experience and insight how the whole thing
work together. But the committer is growing and most of us don't have that
capab
That list just documents how I have handled the me-only workflow in the
past. It is not the workflow that is being defined by Nathan and Brennan.
I don't appreciate a lot of advice and criticism from people who
contribute nothing to this process. If everyone thinks I can going
continue handl
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 5:09 AM Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
>
> > Would it make sense, then, to begin a transition period now? That is,
> > start a gradual move from the current state where Greg is reviewing
> > and merging all changes, toward the direction where other committers
> > are reviewing/mergin
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 4:50 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> Actually, I think I recommended (through implication) that we should not
> use the 'dev' branch, but rather a custom, per-PR branch. A single dev
> branch does not work for the reasons I mention above. The worst is that
> many people are usin
Hi,
Just a couple of comments.
> * git push [--force] origin dev
I’m not sure this is allowed on Apache repos, the —force that is, push is of
course fine.
>* Squash merge the change onto the dev branch.
History can be lost this way, are you sure you want to do this? Every line of
On 12/31/19, Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
>> The workflow will be improved in the future, but any interim workflow
>> will be the same flawed workflow that was used in the Bitbucket
>> repositories.. with some tweaks for working together better.
>>
> I think that the only objective is a short term one:
The workflow will be improved in the future, but any interim workflow
will be the same flawed workflow that was used in the Bitbucket
repositories.. with some tweaks for working together better.
I think that the only objective is a short term one: To keep our heads
above water until the pe
/* Squash merge the 'dev' branch onto master. The change on master
will include both the original PR and your coding style fixes. Again,
this assumes you are the only user of dev and another reason to
consider using a custom temporary branch./
Thank you for sharing this step-by-step process.
Hi Greg and Nathan,
On 12/31/19, Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
>> Would it make sense, then, to begin a transition period now? That is,
>> start a gradual move from the current state where Greg is reviewing
>> and merging all changes, toward the direction where other committers
>> are reviewing/merging c
Would it make sense, then, to begin a transition period now? That is,
start a gradual move from the current state where Greg is reviewing
and merging all changes, toward the direction where other committers
are reviewing/merging changes. Perhaps, for the next couple of weeks,
Greg could continue
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 3:01 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> > That was actually necessary. We don't want to build a huge backlog.
>
> I still have some fears about what is going to happen after the
> holidays. My experience is that things pick up slowly after the New
> Year.So we have another week
That was actually necessary. We don't want to build a huge backlog.
I still have some fears about what is going to happen after the
holidays. My experience is that things pick up slowly after the New
Year. So we have another week or so until go back to their normal rates.
Even then, I
That was actually necessary. We don't want to build a huge backlog.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 1:32 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
> I propose that I merge all PRs under the "old workflow" so that we can
> start the New Year with a clean slate. Let me know if anyone is opposed.
>
>
I propose that I merge all PRs under the "old workflow" so that we can
start the New Year with a clean slate. Let me know if anyone is opposed.
23 matches
Mail list logo
