On 09/20/11 - 07:41:13AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
On 09/19/2011 03:58 PM, Matt Wagner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:43:54AM -0400, Christopher Alfonso wrote:
>> Was there ever a final decision made with regard to Hugh's git flow post to
the list. The replies were sort of split for and against. As a newcomer to the team,
I'm not sure how such process change decisions are made (unanimous/majority votes vs
the benevolent dictator approach). I may have missed a post to the list the closed this
topic out.
> AFAICT, the decision seemed to hit some ambivalence and then discussion
> just fizzled out, and I assumed it was dead. That's part of the reason
> that I decided to pick it back up, but in a more-palatable form.
>
> As for how process-change decisions are made, truthfully, I'm not sure
> there's any hard guideline. I'd say that in general we just try to reach
> a consensus, and are usually pretty good at eventually getting there,
> even if it's a bit circuitous at times.
>
> Best,
> Matt
Matt,
+1 from me. Good Stuff.
Also, since there was no final decision made on the patch process. I
would like to propose that if we do move to github then we adopt the
github patch process.
For two reasons:
1) This is how the majority of the ruby community works and I think it
would be in our advantage to be consistent.
a) We are dependent on a lot of gems, if we need to get changes into
these gems it would be beneficial if we were experienced in their process.
b) It lowers the barrier for entry for other rubyists wanting to
contribute to the project, (since the github patch process seems to be
the standard across the community)
2) It cleans up our mailing lists. There have been several requests to
do something about the mailing lists, patches just clog the things up,
this solution solves the issue without having to bring in another list
(which I know some people are dead set against).
I understand that this would be a learning curve for a lot of people and
it might set us back a little time, but given the benefits I think it is
worth it.
Unless others have a compelling reason to think otherwise?
The compelling reason is that it is a change in the process, and I don't see
a lot of benefit from it. You are basically switching from having to monitor
the mailing list to having to monitor pull requests. I just don't see it as a
net win.
Given all of the churn we've had in this project, I'd much rather see us just
settle down and get into a rhythm of producing code and releases. Unless the
new process is *massively* better (and I don't see that it is), it is just more
churn.
--
Chris Lalancette