Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes: > >> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: >>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah? >> >> I wouldn't use quite the same words as Léo, but from my perspective, >> controlling access to particular branches (master, staging, >> core-updates, ...) on Savannah is a good thing, as it reduces risk. > > I don't see much risk here. You're talking about a 'wip' branch that > almost no one will be using anyway. We already trust all Guix > committers with our master branch, which directly and immediately > affects any Guix user who updates their system at the right time.
No, I was talking about particular branches, master, staging, core-updates, ... and controlling access to those more sensitive branches. I mention this as context for discussing acesss control to wip-* branches, because currently as I understand it, if someone wants access to work on a specific wip- branch, the only way to do that is grant access to all branches in all repositories in the Guix Savannah project. ... > I'd strongly prefer for this work to be done on Savannah. If this were > a fringe branch of marginal interest, it might make sense to have it > elsewhere, but this is core Guix desktop work that's likely to be of > interest to a large segment (plausibly a majority) of our community. > IMO, it belongs in our official git repository. I'm not commenting on this Gnome 40 related work, as I'm not really involved, but I do think there's some potential for improvement regarding how wip- branches are handled. Having them on Savannah is great as you say, but that makes these branches more difficult to use for people who don't have commit access.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
