On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:18 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Thanks for writing this. I, for one, would love to see the process > > evolve a little to account for the scale of work coming through the > > list on any given day. However, that's a discussion that will be > > easier to have once we have the status quo written and checked in. > > ... > > So, if nobody disagrees with the content of this document, I think we > > should absolutely merge it. It will be great for newbies to see what > > they're getting into, and for me to send to my boss to explain why my > > predictions for my team's patches landing are so broad. > > Isn't it a bit too late to say "if nobody disagrees with", after it > was pointed out that the world around here does not work that way > (yet) about a week ago? Well, so far we heard from one person who perceives it as status quo (the author), one person new to the project, the maintainer, and me :) I think Josh is working on a v2 with links as you asked. I have certainly followed the process Josh described here for a couple of large projects coming from my team - to mind, config-based hooks, submodules UX proposal, and libification proposal all came with discussion before any patches. I'd love to hear from others who have been implementing large-scale changes in a different way, like brian, or Taylor and the other GitHub folks, too - if this patch is too different from what actually happens with their work, let's trim until it isn't, instead. > > If we have an agreeable v2 already posted on the list that I missed, > then sorry, please disregard the above comment. > > I still don't think it captures "the status quo", which is what you > want this document to be, about "larger-scale decisions", as the > Introduction of the document says. Can we have a set of pointers in > the document, when it gets rerolled, to an actual example of how we > made such a larger-scale decision? Without such illustration with a > real world example, it looks to me that what it describes is what we > wish the process to be (which is not necessarily I would object to), > but labeling it as "describing the status quo" is very much > objectionable. > > Thanks.
