Hi Gilles, I'm fine with the pull request method too. We hadn't been considering this avenue for master updates in the transition to github. I think as long as we have a set way for associating the pull of a given request into master, so they don't end up in a kind of purgatory, we'll be in good shape.
Howard 2014-11-06 20:11 GMT-07:00 Ralph Castain <rhc.open...@gmail.com>: > Yeah - to be clear, I had no problem with anything you did, Gilles. I was > only noting that several of them had positive comments, but they weren’t > being merged. Hate to see the good work lost or forgotten :-) > > > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > Actually, I like the PRs; I like the nice github tools for commenting > and discussing. > > > > I'm sorry I haven't followed up on the two you filed for me yet. :-( > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet < > gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> My bad (mostly) > >> > >> I made quite a lot of PR to get some review before commiting to the > master, and did not follow up in a timely manner. > >> > >> I closed two obsoletes PR today. > >> > >> #245 should be ready for prime time. > >> #227 too unless George has an objection. > >> > >> I asked Jeff to review #232 and #228 because they are large and/or > objectionable changes. > >> > >> I asked George to review #262 since it might require some other changes. > >> > >> #261 is ready for prime time assuming this is the way we agree to go. > >> > >> If you think i should post patches/links to my branches to the devel > mailing list rather than issuing PR, or i should name my branches > rfc/something, then just let me know. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Gilles > >> > >> > >> "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Ralph Castain <rhc.open...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I agree - I sent the note because I see people doing things a bit > differently than expected. I have no issue with PRs for things where people > want extra eyes on something before committing, or as part of an RFC. Just > want to ensure folks aren’t letting them languish expecting some kind of > gatekeeper to merge them…as that will never happen. > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> The wiki actually specifically mentions this use case (PR's against > master for RFCs and extra eyes). But it would be good to clarify that > there is no gatekeeper for these PRs like there is in ompi-release. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jeff Squyres > >>> jsquy...@cisco.com > >>> For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> devel mailing list > >>> de...@open-mpi.org > >>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > >>> Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16263.php > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devel mailing list > >> de...@open-mpi.org > >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > >> Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16264.php > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > jsquy...@cisco.com > > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > de...@open-mpi.org > > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16265.php > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16266.php >
