nope -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > So was there a final conclusion? > I get it that it makes sense to create a stabilisation branch shortly > before really rolling a release (kind fo RC builds). This is basically a > release branching attempt. > But as we lack of a ReleaseManager who _reviews_ and pulls over all those > changes on a daily basis I thin there is just no justification for this > development branch thingy. > > Any objections to merge development into master? > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 31.01.2015 um 13:36 schrieb Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]>: > > > > Oh... I see. I'm not talking about feature implementation. I'm talking > > about the release process and release branches. > > I don't like a branch per feature either. :) We don't need that. > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> If you push it to github or attach it as patch you will get help. > >> That was also the way it used to be with SVN. And it would even be ok to > >> grant an ASF colleague rights to your github repo or pull a fix from > him. > >> > >> Of course it would be even better if we could have such branches in a > >> 'sandbox' repo on ASF hardware. But we don't have those YET... :) > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Saturday, 31 January 2015, 13:28, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> No help yes. That is what we should target anyway. > >>> > >>> And removing a remote temp branch is not bad. > >>> > >>> Mark got a good proposal with staging mirrors of main asf repos. > >>> > >>> Le 31 janv. 2015 13:22, "Thiago Veronezi" <[email protected]> > >>> a écrit : > >>> > >>>> @Romain: if we are talking about temp remote branches, it implies > later > >>>> removal of this branch [bad] otherwise we end up with dead branches > >> [bad]. > >>>> If we are talking about local or remote branches that can be used by > >> only > >>>> one person, it implies no help from the other developers [bad]. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> <[email protected] > >>>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> @Thiago: not exactly since we do it in temp branches which could even > >>> be > >>>>> private > >>>>> Le 31 janv. 2015 10:32, "Mark Struberg" > >>> <[email protected]> a écrit : > >>>>> > >>>>>>> The "Apache Way” is not a set of rules. The Apache Way > >>> is > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> community over code. That’s it. Nothing else. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alan, it is important but all that comes only _after_ some very > >>> basic > >>>>>> legal rules we have to follow. > >>>>>> Those are not many, but they exist. E.g. if a PMC doesn't > >>> like to > >>>> follow > >>>>>> the license and marks guidelines then it will simply get shut > >>> down by > >>>>>> board. And I'm glad that we don't have such issues at > >>> TomEE. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To understand the importance of code provenance you just need to > >>> look > >>>> at > >>>>>> the current subpoena we have to handle: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_subpoenaed1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So it is really _very_ important for the foundation to have a > >>> very good > >>>>>> SCM history which can stand the proof of court! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LieGrue, > >>>>>> strub > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
