Re: [Groff] commit policy

[Werner LEMBERG]

Hello Meg!


> The flaw I see to Werner's proposed policy is that comments and
> discussions are not stored in the git repository for posterity.  We
> are using gerrit, which is a lovely review tool, in conjunction with
> git and it's a rather lovely system.

I've worked with gerrit, and I don't like it very much.  It makes
sense if there is a very large contributor base, and if the code base
is similarly large.  For a relatively small project like groff with
such a small number of contributors, I consider it overkill.

In case there are essential discussions regarding a patch, the right
policy IMHO is to add a link to the mailing list, pointing to the
discussion.  The same holds for bug reports.


    Werner


PS: With GNU lilypond, we use a different approach.

     . patches are uploaded to google's `rietveld' system

     . our `patch meister' runs the patch and checks whether it breaks
       the system, or if the regression tests show any issues

     . after a countdown allowing for comments, a patch gets committed
       to a `staging' branch

     . if the automatic build system works fine, the pending patches
       in `staging' are finally applied to `master'

   While working and useful, this needs a person acting as the `patch
   meister'...