Re: Switching SCM to git and commit/review policy

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1647 bytes --]

Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Alain M. <alainm@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Hi, I am really new here but I have one suggestion:
>> Graeme Gregory escreveu:
>>> 1) OE-core - everything needed to get upto a successful glibc build
>>> 2) OE-universe - all the other stuff, the recipes and distro configs.
> 
> Yes, but make this split only by means of convention, not in the scm
> (name)space please.
> Having a gentlemen's agreements that non-core developers should not
> "commit changes to classes/conf and all the core packages (udev,
> busybox, kernels)" is close to what we do nowadays and works fine.
> 
> I agree with Michael that intrusive changes should be done in branches.
> 
> My personal strong meaning is that we should first convert to GIT,
> without changing our current policy TOO much.

I agree. I also know we need to strengthen the gentlemen's agreement and 
this is a very good time to do it.

> Really, the change to GIT alone will already impact the productivity
> negatively, due to the dip in the developer commits resulting from
> that (people setting up their environment and workflow instead of
> maintaining stuff).
> If we crawled back up, let's improve on things.
> 
> For later, -next is a good idea to merge new branches first, and see
> where the autobuilder/tests fail, and nack stuff if it got broken

I'd like to see us have a set of machine/distro/image's that must build 
after changes to "core OE". Breakage in .dev hurts a lot of people's 
productivity.

Do we have the resources and volunteers to help test changes to core?

Philip

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]