Yeah, good idea. I'll take a look into implementing it soon.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me> wrote: > Hi, > > That sounds great - the ability to work together on features off-master > would be really helpful. > > Andy > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 16:15, Mike Blumenkrantz < > michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> After some discussions about git organization, it's become clear to me that >> we should be trying to enact some changes which facilitate collaboration, >> both between existing contributors and keeping in mind future contributors. >> >> The current git branch policy is this: >> >> * master >> * $project-$version >> * devs/$name/$branchname >> >> No others are allowed. This fits many use cases, but it does not actually >> help us work towards collaborating on features/patchsets and instead >> promotes developing in isolation. >> >> A simple proposal could improve this without requiring or significantly >> changing our workflow: add "feature/" branches. For example, if Cedric and >> I decide to work on a "feature" which scrapes the archive of this mailing >> list and then crashes the session of anyone who replies to this thread, we >> might jointly create a branch named "feature/discussion_helper" and push >> commits to it. >> >> A key point of this proposal would be that the feature/ branches must >> trigger mails to the mailing list just like stable branches. This would >> increase visibility for feature branches as well as promote further >> collaboration even from those who are not directly involved in creating the >> feature. The initial feature development could be done in a dev/ branch, >> and then it could later move to a feature/ branch once it has progressed to >> the point where it is ready for public visibility and increased >> collaboration. >> >> Lastly, feature branches would not be required use, just encouraged. This >> allows people to continue the current EFL standard of always committing >> only to master without any prior testing or branching, the need for which >> has defeated other proposals which would prevent such action. >> >> I think this could yield significant improvements to the community's >> overall workflow without massively changing the structure under which the >> everyone has been functioning. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> > -- > http://andywilliams.me > http://ajwillia.ms > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
