On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:07:59PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 08:47:24AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 9/26/19 8:42 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Again, I'd like to reinforce that the idea is not to enforce any part of
this
> > workflow tomorrow, it'll be a smooth, slow and long transition. My question
is
> > whether this is a place where we want to go or can we come up with a
> > different/better one?:)
>
> The problem with this statement is that this is written as "come up with
> something different or else we're doing it my way anyway" and not "ok,
we'll
> not do this."
This is all very open for discussion but I'm going to defend my proposal to some
extent :)
There is a clear initial rejection of a PR-only contribution model. I hear that
and that may mean that we never go this way. I'm honestly fine with that :)
I do want to see why that is a show-stopper and if we can find ways to not have
it be a show-stopper.
When we work on upstream projects, I think it's pretty standard now to always go
via PRs, even for your own branch.
So that tests are run, so that other member of the community can see, comment,
review the change.
That's completely fine...
What is so different in Fedora that we cannot move to this model?
... the problem is saying that this is the only approach.
In various upstream projects I maintain, PRs may be used in 99.5% of cases,
but there always are cases where a manual merge or a direct commit is the
best option.
Particular aspect of working in a distro is the number of repos one might
touch: it would be very unusual to commit to more than a handful of github
repos in a year. It is completely normal to commit to hundreds of dist-git
repos in one week when doing a mass change.
Zbyszek