Yeah, and the policy can be quite simple: give merge permission to whoever asks for it, assuming that they know what they are doing, and revoke that permission if they show to not understand how it works.
I don't know if this is too much work though. On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Iván Briano <sachi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> wrote: >> On 27/02/13 15:02, Rafael Antognolli wrote: >>> OK, I don't, but here's another idea: on the update script (or >>> wherever you are doing this), we only allow specific people who are >>> already very familiar with git to do merge commits. >>> >>> Would this be reasonable? >> >> We can easily do that, but is that wanted? > > For a while at least? To keep people from blindly pushing merges > when not needed? It's much more likely they'll learn if their push > fails than reading mails from us saying "oh, hey, it would be nice > to avoid merges like that. Please rebase." > >> >> -- >> Tom. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. >> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics >> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb >> _______________________________________________ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- Rafael Antognolli http://antognolli.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
