Pull freeze

[Russel Winder]

On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 11:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
> You can't suggest a revolution - only carry it through. But I'm a bit 
> confused. We already use git, and the idea is to use it better. What's 
> the thing with subversion etc? Where's the revolution?

As has been noted many time now I'm afraid, Git is currently being used
as though it were Subversion. Subversion mind set is being applied when
using Git commands.  In changing from Subversion to Git all mindsets as
well as processes need to be changed. The revolution started with the
actual repository move, but sadly it was not carried through by amending
the processes.

[…]
> Agreed. But that means we'd need to use branching and tagging better, 
> not to "revolutionize" things.

Well actually there is an element of using branching and tagging at all.
Branching and tagging in Subversion is cheap in the database and very
expensive for clients. Worse merging still remains a problem for
Subversion hence branching is a tool of last resort. Branching, tagging
and merging are cheap for Git, but there needs to be a move from CVCS
thinking to DVCS thinking on the part of those people with write
permission to the mainline.

[…]
> To be honest I think we've reaped a lot of low-hanging fruit so far. 
> Improving the process will bring some marginal efficiency improvements, 
> but adding more good committers and contributors would be much more 
> impactful. As far as I can tell there's not (there used to be) a hoard 
> of disgruntled contributors unable to push things forward.

This paragraph appears (apologies if I have it wrong) to highlight part
of the problem. The way you speak of committers and contributors
indicates Subversion hangover.  DVCS is about having reviewers of
changesets, and gatekeepers who make the merges into the mainline. The D
process has much of this already but at the core the approach to the
mainline is CVCS not DVCS mindset. 

> > If there isn't a new process in place immediately 2.060 is released and
> > master tagged, this I think this would have to be considered a "red
> > flag". The corollary is, I guess, to delay releasing 2.060 till you have
> > a new process as well as the release being ready to ship.
> 
> Why do you think that would be a good decision? There's a lot of value 
> added right now and a lot of pent-up demand for the many bug fixes and 
> improvements.

If the road to 2.061 starts without the new process mostly in place, the
danger is there will a mainline freeze to put out 2.061.

> > Of course none of this stops people preparing evolutions of the mainline
> > now even during a mainline repository freeze, this is DVCS / Git and so
> > Subversion trunk rules just do not apply!
> 
> Sure. I agree that should (and can easily) change. But I fail to get the 
> overarching theme of your post - I just see agitation, agitation, 
> agitation, but no coherence.

Sorry but if you haven't got the points already, then my points are more
than valid.

Anyway, it is clear you are asking me to shut up on this topic so this
will be my last post on it.

Back to Java :-((

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-announce/attachments/20120801/4801b399/attachment.pgp>