On Thursday, May 19, 2011 20:20:13 Ben Cooksley wrote: > I see quite a few problems with that workflow:
thanks for the input; i've added some of the core issues you raise to the "Requirements" section of the wiki page. this will help us craft something that fits the actual needs of us all. > Please reconsider your proposed workflow. i'd like this to become "our" workflow rather than "your" workflow. we need to start somewhere, and here is as good a place as any. if nothing else, it ends the stalemate of "nobody moves, nobody gets hurt" around defining a git based workflow for our efforts. but it will only produce good results if we, as a community, take it on as "ours". not "yours", not "mine", not "theirs". "ours". because then we'll participate with eagerness and expectation. :) those of us involved thus far are doing so because no one has really stepped up yet. however, we are not interested in dictating anything. we want participation, we want discussion, we want to come up with something that Works(tm) which means being completely open to adjusting any parts that need adjusting until we have something that does work for us all (as much as that is possible, of course :) -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
