On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own namespaces > including committing code that does not compile (e.g. for their gnunet.git > forks). > However, in order to get it into the "main" gnunet project codebase, the CI > must pass for the respective pull request and I would argue that 1-2 "main" > devs should sign off on the commit (this allows us to control the CAA issue a > bit). > Then, things like 0.11.1 and 0.11.2 will not happen anymore and devs still > have the freedom to commit their current work even if does not compile.
I'm still not convinced. Everybody can already use their own branches even right now to commit code that doesn't compile. Do we even have enough "main devs" to make it feasible to require 1-2 gatekeeper sign-offs for every commit? What if somebody is on vacation? What about experimental subsystems like RPS? Is there anybody else than grothoff who would have the domain knowledge to sign off commits on RPS for ch3? I'm worried that this will lead to a balkanization of the project, where everybody just works on their own branch, because some want to make integrating changes into master so tedious. It'll also make more sweeping changes and refactoring much harder to pull off. Once we grow really big, we can do all this. Great if we already have the infrastructure partially in place. Then we can even have some core repo with a lot of gate keeping. But for the current situation, that's just overkill and does more harm than good IMHO. GNUnet should be fun and anarchy, not bureaucracy and gatekeeping. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list GNUnet-developers@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
