+1 Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
> Op 24 dec. 2019 om 06:07 heeft Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:51 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Recent events have made me reconsider some decisions I made. I threw >> off the single committer mantle when I saw the abuse of privilege in the >> repositories. If the PPMC agrees to it, I will take up that role again. >> >> But let's be frank. Here is what I think that means: >> >> * I would be sole committer of changes. The repositories would have >> to be treated as read-only just as back in the Bitbucket days. >> * I would grandfather in the i.MXRT changes. >> * I will decline all workflow related changes until workflow >> requirements are established (that is my only real motivation for >> suggesting this: To make certain that we have proper requirements >> in place before we accept PX4 workflow into our repositories. We >> need to do this right and I am willing to protect the repositories >> until the workflow requirements are established. I expect that to >> take about two weeks.) >> * I would create a dev branch and expect all PRs to be against that >> dev branch. >> * As soon as the PPMC is confident that it has the processes in place >> to handle the commit workload I will gladly relinquish this role. >> * THIS IS NOT THE APACHE WAY. This is an interim dictatorship role to >> expedite the avalanche of commits expected after the holidays. >> >> If any of this concerns people, please "Just Say No." I am not married >> to the idea and I am not forcefully advocating it. This is what people >> wanted me to do a few days ago and if I can protect our right to define >> the workflow, then I will do it. For me it is a sacrifice that I would >> take with no pleasure in. >> >> Pros: This will provide project continuity until the PPMC is fully >> functional. Having workflow requirements will be a huge step in that >> direction. People stressed about the commit process can relax with >> confidence. This will protect the code base from premature work flow >> changes until we have an understanding of what we want. No harm is done >> by deferring workflow changes until we as a team are prepared to deal >> with them. >> >> Cons: This is not the Apache way. People who are trying to bulldoze >> the PX4 work flow into the repositories will hate the idea. Mentors >> will hate the idea. An approach more consistent with the Apache way >> would just be to let the chaos prevail. That is fine with me too as >> long as we do not let PX4 advocates take away our group right to define >> our own workflow. We can still just put all workflow changes on hold >> until we have the requirements in hand. >> >> I am not pushing anything. Think about it and let me know what you >> would like to do. > > I agree with this because it is premature to change the way we work > before there is a documented workflow that helps us understand what to > do. > > Over the next two weeks, we should focus on designing the top-down > workflow. It doesn't have to be final and it doesn't have to be > perfect. We can improve it over time. But right now it's not ready, > so I appreciate Greg's offer to do that, while the workflow is prepared. > > Thanks to Greg and everyone, > Nathan
