On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 03:21:49PM +0200, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> OK, given the discussions there has been the last two days, I think we
> should clarify the actual development process that should be "the"
> development process (*)
>
> There are mainly two positions.
>
> 1. mandatory review: any change must go through the merge request
> process (and later, when the perfect code hosting site has been found,
> whatever process exists on it). We would need to decide WHO has the
> responsibility to say "yes, that request can be merged".
> 2. optional review: it is up to the developers to decide if they want
> some commits reviewed. Non-maintainers obviously have to go through
> merge requests as they don't have push rights on the project
> repositories. Developers will have to take responsibility as to say
> "yes, I think that request should be merged" or -- at least -- to ping
> people that could take that responsibility.
>
> In practice, while I believe that 1. is the theoretically best option,
> it is absolutely not practical as it requires way more manpower that
> what we have.

I fear so too. But

> In general, I'd like to know what's the state of mind of Peter (and
> Markus ?) w.r.t. pushing code on gitorious. Right now, master lags
> behind horribly !

I think what is used should be driven by (1) the preference(s) of the
maintainer and (2) be simple for newcomers.

So if Peter's fine with pull request I'll choose that. If you want
orogen stuff through gitorious, I'll do that too.

I think in any case maintainers should be able to pick up few patches
from the list.

> (*) as a personal note, it is important for me to know as I want to know
> if I'll need to keep a fork of the orocos-toolchain packages on the
> orocos-dfki-toolchain project or not. Right now, given how the
> orocos/rtt master lags, I'm inclined to say "yes".

The question is if we use git or gitorious, right?

Markus