On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:29 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
