On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:29 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr> wrote:
There is a clear initial rejection of a PR-only contribution model. I
hear that
and that may mean that we never go this way. I'm honestly fine with that :)
I do want to see why that is a show-stopper and if we can find ways to not have
it be a show-stopper.
When we work on upstream projects, I think it's pretty standard now to always go
via PRs, even for your own branch.
So that tests are run, so that other member of the community can see, comment,
review the change.
What is so different in Fedora that we cannot move to this model?
Is it a tooling issue?
Is it something else?
Most packages in Fedora are effectively one-person projects (modulo
rebuild scripts and other automated tooling). My experience when
working on a personal project is that I don't use PRs for changes even
if I do develop a change in a branch, rather than master; it's a lot
of unnecessary overhead. There are no "other members" of the
community. No one is reviewing the change other than me.
For some critical, high-profile packages maintained by a team of
people, forcing pull requests seems reasonable enough. I'm very
skeptical it makes sense for most of the distribution. I'm glad you're
thinking about improving the packager experience (it's a very
important topic!), but I think it's critical that we keep in mind the
use case of the "ordinary packager", not the "expert packager". And I
think that's packages with limited divergence from upstream (only a
few patches) that only one, _maybe_ two, people regularly touch.
Ben Rosser