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

[David Davis]

Just wanted to send out a reminder that voting is ending on Monday, June 12
at 9pm UTC. I haven’t seen much of a response around trying to adopt an
alternative to PUP-3 that doesn’t involve cherry-picking so I am going to
assume there isn’t much interest in doing so. Again, please respond with
any thoughts or feel free to change your vote if that’s not the case.
Thanks.


David

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:59 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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/20170609/7233b38c/attachment.htm>