Hi, > Note if PLC4X were setup to have its GitHub repo as its main repo, not this > non-writeable mirror thing, merging a PR would involve a committer just > pushing the PR’s merge button. Also we could use Github Issues.
With the current set up we can do both those things i.e. merge PRs and use issue if we want. I’m all for forks for larger changes - one issue is that longed lived forks / PR can run into merge issues. It generally why git flow style workflow is now seen as a poor idea. On the subject to visibility I think pushes provide more that PRs (and you need to go to GitHub to see the PRs) but each to their own. > There seem to be a lot of benefits to using the fork/PR model so I wonder why > we wouldn’t strongly encourage committers to use them too. Are there good > arguments for not using them? Maybe I’m just in the minority here… and so be > it :-) But that being said I don’t see any reason for now using them. It does tend towards a more RTC (review then commit) process than a CTR (commit then review) process. Both are used at Apache. Thanks, Justin
