Richard Spindler wrote:
> 2007/11/12, Christian Thaeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> Hey we use a distributed revision control system, this means we can
>>>> merge code which is only coarsely reviewed to not contain backdoors
>>> OK. I wasn't sure how much quality control was applied.
>> Thats was my personal opinion, I am already quite sure some people
>> disagree with it :). But well, don't misunderstand me that I would
>> accept bad quality, my point is just that there has to be some start
>> even an unacceptable contribution might lay a seed for a better fix and
>> evolve into something good.
>
> Guide to a nice distributed development model:
> - Major contributors get to control the central repository.
How is that distributed? :)
> - Minor contributers send patches to Mailinglist. If patches are okay
> and plenty, minor contributor is given commit access and becomes major
> contributor.
Imo too much work, someone has to pick the things up from the
mailinglist and commit them somewhere, I like the mob repo thing more.
Of course people may still send patches to the ML if they dont use git,
thats better than nothing. Git can apply mailboxes too.
> - Independent code chunks are spinned of into seperate projects. API
> is fixed. If an API change is neccessary, he how proposed the change
> needs to provide patches to affected projects.
> - If someone is unhappy with the main repo, he may branch and create
> his own repo.
Everyone already has his own branch in git, that makes everyone happy by
default :)
> -etc...
>
> Add in some automated test runs and a build-bot to spot regressions,
> and that's it.
ACK.
Hope to see you at Piksel at the git presentation :)
Christian
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
Cinelerra@skolelinux.no
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
