>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Göktürk Yüksek wrote: > Ulrich Mueller: >> The devmanual is the one central place where our development >> workflow should be documented, not some random wiki page. >> > If the most up-to-date information is on the wiki, constantly > updating devmanual to match the wiki creates unnecessary maintenance > burden.
The point is that any information that constitutes policy should be traceable, e.g. there should be a bug or a patch should be posted to the mailing lists. > Related to my point above, looks like the git workflow is still in > the process of making. I expect that some discussion will continue > to take place in the future. We can always fix the other parts of > the devmanual and come back to this. I beg to differ. Apart from some small details, things have settled. Looking at the history of the wiki page, there was quite some activity in the two months following the switch to git, but very little after. > Is it possible to merge this changeset as is while the workflow > matures, or should I go for a round 3? I'd prefer a round 3, including Michael's suggestions at least. That is, include the "Commit message format" subsection from the wiki page (or even the "Commit policy" section; it is not much longer). Ulrich
pgp0RVkHvkWFb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
