Can we simplify the workflow to avoid creating so many temp branching
in the official repo:
1.User submit PR against the master
2.Run style, build and test through CI
3.Review and comment PR by committer
4.Merge PR into master if all check pass
User may have to repeat step 1 to 3 several time before PR finally accept.
Note 1: step 2 may be done by committer manually before the tool is ready.
Note 2: we can refine how many approvement is required before PR can be merge.
That is basically what I was doing on the Bitbucket repository. But I
will not try to maintain the ASF repository in this fashion. No one
should expect me to dispose of any patches or PRs. I don't do that anymore.
Since I will not longer be disposing of patches or PRs. I propose we
use what Justin called "scratch what itches," meaning that if a
committer see a commit come by that interests him/her, take the
responsibility of doing steps 1-4. If no one is interested in a change
then the change is just going to have to linger for awhile.
If user send patch to dev@nuttx.apache.org instead, one of committer
need convert the patch to PR by the same process too.
If there has a big feature development, committer could create a
branch for that after voting in dev list, but the same process should
apply to this branch like master.
Actually, this process is almost same as bitbucket or github, many
developer is already familiar with it:
https://help.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests
The major difference from David's is that no any temp PR branch is
created in the official repo.
+1
The change submission part of the workflow must not contain anything
that the unprivileged contributor cannot do. All contributions by
people with privileges must follow the same workflow as for contributors
without privileges.
We could keep a dev branch like Duo implied and all PRs should be
against the dev branch? That would simplify the above. Alan also
suggest this, but he called it a 'stage'. 'dev' is a better name.
Greg
