[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)
From: |
Christopher Baines |
Subject: |
Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40) |
Date: |
Tue, 30 Mar 2021 07:53:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.1 |
Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw@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
- GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), (continued)
- GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Mark H Weaver, 2021/03/29
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/29
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Mark H Weaver, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), zimoun, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Mark H Weaver, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40),
Christopher Baines <=
- Re: GNOME 40, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/29
- Re: GNOME 40, 宋文武, 2021/03/31
Re: GNOME 40, Raghav Gururajan, 2021/03/29