On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H, > > I see a lot of commits happening directly on the master branch. Yet > there were no counter arguments against the proposed gitflow and the > discussion around it. This leaves me with the idea that the thread is > largely ignored by the community. It is my understanding that we > agreed never to commit anything to master anymore that hasn't been > first committed to a branch and is merged back to master (instead of > cherry-picked). What mistake in thinking am I making here? > > Not familiar with bylaws and the such, but wouldn't a change like this require some sort of voting and potentially a more formal information? Requiring everyone to read through a 50+ replies mail thread and comprehend it could be a bit much. I would suggest an updated document that explain the expected workflow. -- Erik
