Re: [Qemu-devel] why restrict pull reqs to signed tags?

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 03/10/16 11:34, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 09:52 +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Strawman alert: we don't *enforce* rebase.  We leave it to the
>> maintainer's discretion. Nothing stops a maintainer (or a chain of
>> them) from accepting pull requests. 
> 
> Which is all I was asking EDK2 to do. They *do* enforce rebase, which
> is wrong.
> 
> Laszlo appeared to be saying "but qemu works like this; are they wrong
> too?".
> 
> To which the answer is apparently "no, they don't work like this."
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.

Markus, thank you for clearing that up. I failed to distinguish
"enforcement" from "practice that is applied in 99.999% of the time".

David, it doesn't change anything relative to one of my earliest emails:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bios.edk2.devel/8864/focus=8889

I personally agreed to your proposal very early (and have repeated that
agreement a few times since), dependent on agreement from the other edk2
maintainers too. The linear history requirement is not mine in edk2. I
don't enforce it, I comply with it. In my "unkempt" guide, I relay that
requirement, don't dictate it. My explanation of it may not have been
entirely correct, yes. However, Jordan also told you that it is
temporary, while the edk2 people's git expertise matures.

If you want to gather feedback on immediately introducing a workflow to
edk2 that allows merges, please write a focused group email to the
maintainers listed in "Maintainers.txt". Some of them might feel better
about discussing this question, and/or feel more closely addressed, if
it doesn't happen on the list.

Going forward, please refrain from over-using your "cluebat" (e.g., the
tons of bold in your email). Discussing workflow is hard enough in its
own right, you don't need to make it harder by alienating people. Linus
gets away with management by perkele because he's a chief maintainer. In
this case, it's you who wants to achieve something, even if you position
it as "fixing the workflow for everyone". You are right about merging
(and I never denied that), but I do find myself struggling harder and
harder to open your next email.