[Pulp-dev] PUP-3: Proposal to change our git workflow

[David Davis]

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
adopting PUP-3:

+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.


David

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.
>
>
> David
>
> 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:
>>
>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/3#discussion_r111498031
>>
>> Will update the PUP.
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170606/05618f83/attachment.htm>