On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Peter Alexander <vel.ac...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Peter Alexander <vel.ac...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Have you seen >> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitworkflows.html >> >> Yes, it's similar in some ways but more complex. Also I've tried to >> keep our workflow as an explicit set of steps we follow. I assume git >> contributors know git a lot better than 0MQ contributors. >> >> Rather than try to merge arbitrary parts of one workflow into another, >> I'd rather work by identifying problems in the proposed workflow and >> fixing those until it's as simple as we can make it, and still robust. >> > > > Sure, I agree. I should have qualified the submitted link with "as a > reference have you seen..." ;-) > > >> The main ideas: >> >> - we stop working on trunk >> - we tie all work into the issue tracker >> - we enforce reviewing of work >> > > I got confused by "latest stable version" as a descriptor of master branch. > It detracts from the notion of "to be included in next official release". > > Not mentioned and possibly to be considered is using the 'tag' feature on > the master branch for releases and other milestones. > > The proposal is a very good strong protocol, imho. The only thing I would > also observe is that the instruction of the inclusion of the MIT license for > "contributors" was not mentioned there. > But then again there is a page dedicated for contributing patches, so disregard the last observation or maybe consolidate the two pages. > > ~Peter > > >> >> -Pieter >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
