[1839] in BarnOwl Developers
Re: barnowl development workflows
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
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 13:26:44 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: Nelson Elhage <nelhage@MIT.EDU>, barnowl-dev@MIT.EDU
cc: jhutz@cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <30647_1256402804_n9OGkhZL027910_20091024164531.GD21865@mit.edu>
--On Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:45:31 PM -0400 Nelson Elhage
<nelhage@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> * We should try to keep master fairly stable at all times. This will
> improve the utility of doing regular builds, and git should make it
> easy for development of more risky features to happen on a different
> branch.
>
> QUESTION: Should we always have two "stable" and "less stable"
> branches, instead of only when stabilizing for a locker build? If
> so, what should the workflow there look like?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
