On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Yes, but this was causing lots of issues, as I'm sure you remember. > > Actually not - apart from my commiting changes in insufficient > granularity. Happy to take your word for it, though. A few other things spring instantly to mind - an ill-advised redesign of the Undo system, a few problems with the Magic Roundabout system (e.g. having a 50% chance of nuking a way when trying to shorten it) and, more than anything else, lots of cases of commits generating compiler warnings. That these commits were to trunk kept necessitating other developers stepping up and fixing the build before they could continue with their own work. That was getting quite disruptive. > You're probably aware of the long-running debates about pre-commit > review versus post-commit review. Quick summary: pre-commit review > reduces developer activity level but improves quality. I don't know much about the different approaches from a theoretical viewpoint, except that the way were were doing it before caused us lots of issues, and was making refactoring nigh on impossible. >>As Richard has said, his "master" branch is the canonical 'this is >>Potlatch2', so he's in charge > > Cool. This is the definitive statement lacking from the wiki page, > which confused me. I'd written that before the situation was clear. But there's also the distinction that it's not necessarily what OSMF is deploying, and I try to discourage anyone from getting worried about which repo to clone from. If you clone from mine, and then want to pull changes from someone else, it all comes out the same. Any notion of One True Repo just causes more confusion later on! > 1) There is still a definitive repository Make sure you realise that there's nothing that makes it the definitive repository other than social factors. Unlike svn there's no central repository. It's only "definitive" in that Richard is the current maintainer, and the only difference he has over the rest of us is that TomH generally doesn't disagree with him (on p2 matters at least!). But you could also view the OSMF repo as "definitive" if you care about the version that's actually deployed on osm.org There are circumstances (we've done it two or three times already that I can recall) where TomH pulls in bugfixes from my repo straight into the OSMF one and deploys that, when RichardF wasn't around to update his own repository. That's fine, git is totally decentralised like that so it works. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
