On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 05:55 +0200, xor wrote: > On Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30:31 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On 20/06/14 19:59, xor wrote: > > > On Friday, June 20, 2014 02:29:59 PM David Roden wrote: > > > > Good morning, > > > > > > > > a more detailed explanation of the Git branching model we are reasonably > > > > close to can be found at > > > > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/. > > > > > > I am fine with having a distinction between a stable branch "master" > > > and a > > > development branch "next" (or "develop" as that link calls it). I should > > > probably start doing this in WOT after the next release. > > > Feature branches are of course also useful because some new stuff usually > > > breaks compiling and other things while not finished. > > > The Release branches and hotfix branches which the site mentions seem to > > > introduce additional unneeded complexity though. > > > > I'm not doing releases now, but when I have done releases I have found > > release branches very helpful. It may take some time to fully test a > > release and people may be committing new stuff to next at the same time. > > Mmh ok. I might give it a try with WOT. > > > > Most importantly, there is something which we should consider soon for > > > Freenet: Getting rid of the distinction between "official" and "staging" > > > repositories. This IMHO only stems from a lack of knowledge about all Git > > > features, namely signed tags, back when we switched to Git. > > > It only bloats the repository list and raises the entrance barrier for > > > new > > > developers. > > > > The main reason for this was so we could restrict access rights and thus > > limit the possibilities for vandalism. I.e. only RMs can push to the > > official repositories, which only contain official releases. Whereas > > *any* developer can fully rewrite the history or delete the repository > > completely with the staging repo. Granted this is fairly easy to recover > > from. > > Yea well we are not enough developers to justify the maintenance overhead > IMHO.
It's a security control, nothing else. > Its mostly you, Steve and me currently who push stuff, right? None of us > are likely to mess things up. > And newbies should be sending pull requests anyway instead of being given > push > access. > The -official repositories solve a problem which doesn't even exist. > And the result is that our repository list on Github is 5 pages. Thats > unnecessary bloat. > > So can we get rid of this, if only at least for WOT? What about you maintain a (single) repository under your userid on github... and FPI has a single repository that a RM updates whenever your code is deployed (pushing one of the signed tags from your repository)? Florent
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
