+1 to what Erik said.
On 28 July 2014 13:04, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
