From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2602:4b:a4e8:5700:12bf:48ff:fe7c:5584]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81FEC77AD8 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:06:58 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Brannon To: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com References: <20131124111303.eklhad@comcast.net> <20131224163155.GC18259@toaster.adamthompson.me.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:06:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20131224163155.GC18259@toaster.adamthompson.me.uk> (Adam Thompson's message of "Tue, 24 Dec 2013 16:31:55 +0000") Message-ID: <87y53a9o0i.fsf@mushroom.PK5001Z> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Edbrowse-dev] even more confused X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 17:06:58 -0000 Adam Thompson writes: > Nice, I guess we *really* need to agree on a work flow. > Preferably with some code review. Part of the problem is that it is hard to divide up this work among three people. Everything affects everything else. If we knew how to split this up into manageable independent tasks, each of us could just pick something and work on it. If someone has ideas, I'm all ears. Yeah, code review can be a good thing. So, do we require that every change needs to be reviewed and okayed by someone before it is pushed? I'm fine with whatever we decide here. > I think we basicly need to decide if we want to use branches for code review or > use git tags to tag the most up-to-date released version, We already have tags for released versions. I'm fine with commits that won't build, I suppose. And I doubt we'll have very many of them. -- Chris