[1838] in BarnOwl Developers
Re: barnowl development workflows
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nelson Elhage)
Thu Oct 29 18:23:01 2009
Resent-From: nelhage@mit.edu
Resent-To: barnowl-dev-mtg@charon.mit.edu
X-Original-To: nelhage@lunatique.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:17:54 -0400
From: Nelson Elhage <nelhage@MIT.EDU>
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
Cc: barnowl-dev@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <1638250AE9632B35F00B474D@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:26:44PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> For a project this size, I don't see much utility in maintaining two
> separate long-term branches. As long as master is fairly stable,
> splitting off a short-term branch to stabilize for a release should be
> sufficient.
That's my impression. My main motivation to do anything else would
honestly be to get better at using git in interesting workflows
:). But a second opinion is appreciated.
>> I will generally reply to review requests with some comments, and
>> either an Acked-by: or Signed-of-by: line. The former means that I
>> agree with the idea of the code, but either want to see changes
>> before I'm totally happy, or don't feel qualified to review
>> it. The latter means I would be happy to see it go to master.
>
> Note that this is completely different from Linux's use of
> "Signed-off-by", which is an indication that you have a right to submit
> or pass on the change. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section
> 12.
Yeah, I'm familiar with that document. My impression from reading the
LKML is that that tag gets used for more than just tracking of the
author and submission path, but is also used to indicate what I would
generally think of as "signing off on" a patch -- that the signer-off
is willing to OK the patch for conclusion on their authority.
SubmittingPatches suggests I want Reviewed-by. I may switch to using
that.
>
>> QUESTION: These points are based in part on my own preferences and
>> workflows around Zephyr and email. Do other people agree with them,
>> or do you feel that the convenience and immediacy of zephyr counts
>> for more?
>
> Good question. I can live with a policy of using email as the forum of
> record, but I'm not convinced that it's necessary yet to mandate it.
> OTOH, that might be because I don't mind missing such discussions from
> time to time, and others may feel differently.
It's certainly not my intention to mandate the use of email, only to
suggest that I think it makes more sense as a default.
Well, that and to warn people that I, personally, will happily drop
patches that go by on Zephyr if I'm busy, but will make an effort to
ensure that anything that goes to mail gets reviewed.
- Nelson
