Hi Floris, The PR LGTM, I'm just wondering who gives people write access after a successful PR? The last one to merge it?
Cheers, Bruno On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:38 PM Floris Bruynooghe <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've opened https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/pull/2068 if you're > interested in seeing this move forward. Or if you feel strongly > against this of course. > > Thanks, > Floris > > On 16 November 2016 at 19:42, Floris Bruynooghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15 November 2016 at 23:19, Oliver Bestwalter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> will this be a "sorta kinda C4" then or do we want to implement the > whole > >> thing as described in https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ ? > > > > Probably not, upon re-reading this I'm not actually a massive fan of > > the document in it's entirety despite it having many good intentions, > > e.g. 2.3.1 (must use real names) ranks pretty high on my scale for a > > bad idea. But I'm not going to dissect the whole thing here. > > > >> I ask because what you describe Floris is an interesting idea but I do > not > >> see the parallel to C4 as that process clearly has maintainers who > merge PRs > >> of others, which I think of as a Good Thing. I mean this part of the > >> protocol: > >> > >> A "Contributor" is a person who wishes to provide a patch, being a set > of > >> commits that solve some clearly identified problem. > >> A "Maintainer" is a person who merges patches to the project. > Maintainers > >> are not developers; their job is to enforce process. > >> Contributors SHALL NOT have commit access to the repository unless they > are > >> also Maintainers. > >> Maintainers SHALL have commit access to the repository. > > > > So upon re-reading of C4.1 I'm just interested in formalising how one > > gets to be a Maintainer. C4.1 itself leaves this pretty vague while > > I'd like to give Contributors a clear expectation. > > > >> I also like the whole Problem -> Solution idea as basis for > development of > >> the project (section 2.3). > > > > Sure, C4.1 has many good ideas quite a few which we already follow more > or less. > > > >> Giving everybody commit rights who successfully merged a PR is a > different > >> idea that could be experimented with, but I would not call it C4. > > > > You're right, there is virtually no overlap between my proposal and > > C4.1. It had been a very long time since I read C4.1 so honestly I > > didn't really remember what exactly it contained. > > > > > > Floris > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev >
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
