[Pulp-dev] PUP-3: Proposal to change our git workflow
daviddavis at redhat.com
Tue Jun 6 20:59:06 UTC 2017
Talking with @bmbouter a little more about the PUP process and looking back
at PUP-1, I think that the only way for PUP-3 to not be accepted is if a
core developer were to cast/recast a -1 vote. I know there has been talk
about alternatives but looking at the votes, there is a consensus around
+1 - 5 votes
+0 - 1 vote
-0 - 2 votes
-1 - 0 votes
If anyone feels strongly about trying out an alternative or discussing
alternatives further, please recast your vote or respond with your
concerns. Otherwise, I think we'll proceed with approving/rejecting the PUP
based on the votes on the deadline of June 12th.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:27 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
> I have updated the proposal’s motivation section. Note that the actual
> change/workflow hasn’t changed at all.
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:08 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Looks like @bmbouter made a comment to include this but I forgot to
>> include it:
>> Will update the PUP.
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> I think we need to redo the git workflow because we can't continue to
>>>> resolve conflicts during merge forward as we did before. I see that as the
>>>> central issue the PUP is resolving.
>>> The PUP likely needs additional revision in that case; it does not
>>> mention conflict resolution at all as a motivation. It would be valuable to
>>> spell that out and discuss it.
>>> Michael Hrivnak
>>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>>> Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev