From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brock Peabody Subject: Re: help with distributed workflow/signoff Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20100714171614.GA2799@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 14 19:50:13 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZ65z-0007hh-UT for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:50:12 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756870Ab0GNRuF (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:50:05 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:32991 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754508Ab0GNRuD (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:50:03 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZ65h-0007Vn-7s for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:49:54 +0200 Received: from proxy-ny2.bloomberg.com ([199.172.169.87]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:49:53 +0200 Received: from brock.peabody by proxy-ny2.bloomberg.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:49:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 199.172.169.87 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi Jonathan, Thanks for your quick, informative response. This is the information I was hoping to get - how the tool is used by its primary audience. It's going to take me a while to fully absorb it, but I suspect (as Avery points out in his reply) that this type of workflow is less workable when there are fewer reviewers and more patches, most of which are accepted as-is. Nevertheless, I want to make sure that we keep in mind the way the tool is meant to be used when choosing our new workflow, rather than trying to force it into a mold inspired by svn. It would probably do us no harm to be forced to have fewer, more well considered patches. Cheers, Brock