On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Anne Archibald wrote: On 27 May 2010 01:22, Charles R Harris On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Jarrod Millman On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: That's the model we've gone for in nipy and ipython too. We wrote it
up in a workflow doc project. Here are the example docs giving the
git workflow for ipython: https://cirl.berkeley.edu/mb312/gitwash/ and in particular: https://cirl.berkeley.edu/mb312/gitwash/development_workflow.html I would highly recommend using this workflow. Ideally, we should use
the same git workflow for all the scipy-related projects. That way
developers can switch between projects without having to switch
workflows. The model that Matthew and Fernando developed for nipy and
ipython seem like a very reasonable place to start.
__ I wouldn't. Who is going to be the gate keeper and pull the stuff? No
vacations for him/her, on 24 hour call, yes? They might as well run a dairy. And do we really want all pull requests cross-posted to the list? Linus
works full time as gatekeeper for Linux and gets paid for the effort. I
think a central repository model would work better for us. I don't think this is as big a problem as it sounds. If the gatekeeper
takes a week-long vacation, so what? People keep working on their
changes independently and they can get merged when the gatekeeper gets
around to it. If they want to accelerate the ultimate merging they can
pull the central repository into their own and resolve all conflicts,
so that the pull into the central repository goes smoothly. If the
gatekeeper's away and the users want to swap patches, well, they just
pull from each other's public git repositories. Linux has Linus, ipython has Fernando, nipy has... well, I'm sure it is
somebody. Numpy and Scipy no longer have a central figure and I like it that
way. There is no reason that DVCS has to inevitably lead to a central
authority.
Chuck