Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)

[Christopher Baines]

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
>>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
>>
>> I wouldn't use quite the same words as Léo, but from my perspective,
>> controlling access to particular branches (master, staging,
>> core-updates, ...) on Savannah is a good thing, as it reduces risk.
>
> I don't see much risk here.  You're talking about a 'wip' branch that
> almost no one will be using anyway.  We already trust all Guix
> committers with our master branch, which directly and immediately
> affects any Guix user who updates their system at the right time.

No, I was talking about particular branches, master, staging,
core-updates, ... and controlling access to those more sensitive
branches.

I mention this as context for discussing acesss control to wip-*
branches, because currently as I understand it, if someone wants access
to work on a specific wip- branch, the only way to do that is grant
access to all branches in all repositories in the Guix Savannah project.

...

> I'd strongly prefer for this work to be done on Savannah.  If this were
> a fringe branch of marginal interest, it might make sense to have it
> elsewhere, but this is core Guix desktop work that's likely to be of
> interest to a large segment (plausibly a majority) of our community.
> IMO, it belongs in our official git repository.

I'm not commenting on this Gnome 40 related work, as I'm not really
involved, but I do think there's some potential for improvement
regarding how wip- branches are handled.

Having them on Savannah is great as you say, but that makes these
branches more difficult to use for people who don't have commit access.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature