159
edits
FlightGear Git: splitting FGData: Difference between revisions
FlightGear Git: splitting FGData (view source)
Revision as of 22:57, 11 December 2011
, 11 December 2011→A new plan for splitting fgdata
(Comment for handling merge requests) |
|||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
And for aircraft development: Be able to stay in your sandbox, don't mess with other's files, be able to reuse existing (common) files, create reasonable file sizes, accept naming conventions etc. Most important: nobody is perfect, but be able to fix what you broke ;-) | And for aircraft development: Be able to stay in your sandbox, don't mess with other's files, be able to reuse existing (common) files, create reasonable file sizes, accept naming conventions etc. Most important: nobody is perfect, but be able to fix what you broke ;-) | ||
--[[User:ThorstenB|ThorstenB]] 17:57, 11 December 2011 (EST): It's a huge improvement to split aircraft from the main fgdata repo. Any change to an aircraft will only affect a single aircraft. But changes to the rest of fgdata (the central Nasal, Shader, GUI directories etc) can have a massive impact: on all other aircraft, on the simulator core, or on the design/direction/structure of core parts. So, it's good to have these things separated. And I think we can allow a lot more people direct commit access once aircraft are separated - even if they all share a repo. I don't think we would see many (or any) cases of authors messing with other people's work. | |||
And I think the rules are fine and simple enough - actually almost "common sense" when working in a collaborative environment. | |||
(hvengel comments) | (hvengel comments) | ||
Having well defined rules it a good thing. Some (perhaps many) of the aircraft devs have little or no experience with normal software development work flows and they will need well defined rules to help them do the right thing. Reading through the proposed rules I don't see too much room for things to be incorrectly used. However because the level of experience with software work flows will be all over the place (IE. some aircraft devs are also experienced software developers/engineers and some have absolutely no experience with this type of thing) the rules should be a simple and as clear and complete as possible. Nothing should be open to interpretation. | Having well defined rules it a good thing. Some (perhaps many) of the aircraft devs have little or no experience with normal software development work flows and they will need well defined rules to help them do the right thing. Reading through the proposed rules I don't see too much room for things to be incorrectly used. However because the level of experience with software work flows will be all over the place (IE. some aircraft devs are also experienced software developers/engineers and some have absolutely no experience with this type of thing) the rules should be a simple and as clear and complete as possible. Nothing should be open to interpretation. | ||
I don't see the concern over determining GIT and/or aircraft development competence to be a significant issue. I am sure that there are a significant number of aircraft devs who are currently using merge requests who would be given commit rights right from the get go. Newer aircraft devs can work with a mentor with commit rights while they are learning GIT and aircraft development and the mentor can determine when they are ready for commit rights. However I think having a documented process for this might be a good idea. | I don't see the concern over determining GIT and/or aircraft development competence to be a significant issue. I am sure that there are a significant number of aircraft devs who are currently using merge requests who would be given commit rights right from the get go. Newer aircraft devs can work with a mentor with commit rights while they are learning GIT and aircraft development and the mentor can determine when they are ready for commit rights. However I think having a documented process for this might be a good idea. | ||
(HHS comments) | |||
It is good to see that the existing rules are finally formalized, so we get a clear guideline. | It is good to see that the existing rules are finally formalized, so we get a clear guideline. | ||
It is also good to see that people should be more encouraged to submit merge requests. But this also means that those with commit rights should be more encouraged to review those merge requests and commit them! | It is also good to see that people should be more encouraged to submit merge requests. But this also means that those with commit rights should be more encouraged to review those merge requests and commit them! | ||
--[[User:T3r|T3r]] 15:06, 11 December 2011 (EST): Absolutely - however: as most commiters are as lazy as I am, they do not regularly check for merge requests. Picking your most trustworthy commiter from the list and asking him to handle the requests for you is probably a good idea. Reminders by PM are always welcome. | --[[User:T3r|T3r]] 15:06, 11 December 2011 (EST): Absolutely - however: as most commiters are as lazy as I am, they do not regularly check for merge requests. Picking your most trustworthy commiter from the list and asking him to handle the requests for you is probably a good idea. Reminders by PM are always welcome. | ||
{{Appendix}} | {{Appendix}} | ||