This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Replacing CVS - decision time: part 2
- From: Ross Younger <wry at ecoscentric dot com>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at jifvik dot org>
- Cc: eCos Discussion <ecos-discuss at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 10:00:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Replacing CVS - decision time: part 2
- References: <4BD83E6A.30002@jifvik.org> <j2t5f2b61004281226k5ccdb34dj4def005f0f58d454@mail.gmail.com> <4BD89330.8030202@ecoscentric.com> <t2v5f2b61004290625ya03b02day97aca9e1c4d050af@mail.gmail.com> <4BD99F2D.8020308@jifvik.org> <h2w5f2b61004300804i7b529373gc5858ca7370833d0@mail.gmail.com> <4BDBF31D.10602@ecoscentric.com> <20100501100845.GK3734@lunn.ch> <4BDCD3C9.5070709@jifvik.org>
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
I think it's better for review to be seeing the patches and being able to
discuss them; and we've talked about using bugzilla for patch management.
Maybe in future we could use pull requests for more experienced
contributors. NB hg doesn't have pull requests.
It doesn't? I don't see there being any fundamental difference between a
mail to Linus, from one of his trusted lieutenants, saying "please git
pull some.server/some/path/" and a mail (say) to you saying "please hg
pull some.server/some/path/".
But, like you, I am more comfortable with the idea of patch review for
the time being. It really depends on the nature of one's community, and
pull requests just don't match the way we're currently doing things.
They might very well become a later addition to the workflow if we reach
a point where it makes sense to give trusted contributors responsibility
for entire subtrees.
Ross
--
eCosCentric Ltd, Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge CB5 8UU, UK
Registered in England no. 4422071. www.ecoscentric.com
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss