Re: PATCH: document git in Etc/zsh-development-guide

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>]

Phil Pennock wrote:
> Sure, though the tone comes across as a little passive aggressive, which
> hopefully is not what was intended.  We also now have *two* git workflow
> sections, contradicting each other.

I'm sorry if the tone comes across badly.

We already had two contractory workflows and that, more so than the
sections, is what needs resolving. Unfortunately it is harder to
consolidate two contradictory workflows than to take one as a baseline
and discuss how it can be improved or where the interpretation of the
consensus from earlier discussion was wrong. I don't want to obstruct
things going forward so am happy to defer to you if you'd like to
consolidate the text in the development guide. Alternatively, if you'd
prefer, I can patch it.

> You skipped the commit numbers; my understanding of the simple process
> to date is that the code change is one commit, the changelog and
> integration is a second commit, see step 4.  Yes, it's an extra commit,

My understanding was that ChangeLog files would be handled by Peter
running Frank Terbeck's script at suitable times such as before a
release. See workers/30119.

> Sharing the feature, for folks who want to see it and comment, as part
> of feature branch work, and then cleaning up afterwards, so we don't end
> up with thousands of branches.  Sure, they're light, but that doesn't
> mean housekeeping is unnecessary.

I would keep things simple, at least initially, and stick with patches
in the mailing list as the primary means of sharing new work. It's an
easy thing to change later once the two main developers get used to git.
But, I don't really mind either way.

Oliver