On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:11:22AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On segunda-feira, 22 de abril de 2013 16.59.27, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:48:07AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > On segunda-feira, 22 de abril de 2013 16.25.30, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > > as far as i'm concerned, the push policy for all non-mainline branches > > > > (in particular those without a CI) is entirely up to the discretion of > > > > their owners. > > > > > > And where is it documented for winrt? > > > > why should it be? > > Because people need to know what to expect if they are going to participate. > while not entirely invalid, i don't think this is of particular concern. somebody who joins the work on a project is supposed to be talking to the respective people.
> > > Therefore, we define one only: no rebase. > > > > you are effectively asking for a second gerrit instance then. > > maybe rethink that. > > Ok, then add "rebasing" to the branch name somewhere. Preferably: > > wip/rebasing/xxx > sounds over-engineered to me. and unnecessarily restrictive, as the policy may change ad-hoc as things progress. i don't think we should put any more energy into discussing this matter. the only action point is documenting on the wiki that wip/ branches (winrt should have had that prefix, obviously) may be subject to history rewriting. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development