On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 12:27 -0500, Will Woods wrote:
Hi folks,
So I've been thinking about how we should be managing the autoqa
sources, and patch review, and things like that. Here's some guidelines
that I've come up with. Probably this will go in a wiki page on the
autoqa trac instance, but I wanted to send it here for review first.
The short version is this:
* we use git, and the 'master' branch is the production code (for now)
* send git-formatted patches to the autoqa-devel list
* if changes are too big for patches, ask for a personal branch
* wwoods is responsible for applying patches / merging changes, but
he'll also get jlaska & kparal to help
I'd defer to you and Kamil first. But I'm happy to merge changes
whenever desired.
The longer version:
* autoqa is hosted in git, and the autoqa-devel mailing list is the best
place to discuss new ideas for autoqa tests, features, and such.
Definitely. Keep the thread coming! :)
* The autoqa git repo has a 'master' branch - this should be
considered
the production code, at least for now. We encourage developers to clone
the repo and create their own private branches.
With guidance from Will, I updated the AutoQA_PatchProcess page to
provide some guidance on creating a named branch to work on changes.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_PatchProcess#Named_Branch
* If you have a bugfix or a proposed patch, please send it to the
list
for review or discussion. It's best if you use 'git format-patch' and
'git send-email' to format and send your patch(es). Anyone on the list
should feel free to comment on incoming patches.
Same here. I reordered some wiki content regarding patch submission.
Thoughts/concerns welcome -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_PatchProcess#Patch_submission
* If you have some changes that are more complex than a simple patch
or
patch set, feel free to ask for commit access to the repo so you can
have your own branch in the public repo. (This will make it easier to
cherrypick changes and/or merge large patch sets without overwhelming
the list.)
* It's helpful if people who have personal branches put their
username/IRC nick in the branch name, so everyone knows who owns which
branch.
In hindsight, having my local changes in a branch would have made
merging a bit easier.
* wwoods is the maintainer/patch monkey for the 'master'
branch, but he
sometimes delegates authority to jlaska and kparal to do updates to
master. (Especially when he's off in the clouds and there's bugs that
need fixin'.)
Does this clear up the current development process any?
This does for me. I don't have tons of development project experience,
but what I appreciate here is trying to be specific about who is
responsible for what. So if this helps identify who is doing what,
when ... great!
Thanks,
James