On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On 05.10.2017 22:36, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>>> Devil's advocate hat on, and in light of Brane's sibling reply, let me
>>> describe how an svnmucc workflow might work.
>> Thanks, but I prefer the merge workflow. It seems more natural to me,
>> and I think it's more likely to be used by other svn users out there,
>> in case they have such a workflow. So it seems like the more
>> interesting dog food to me :-).
>>
>> I'm not very good at writing down an accurate procedure, but I still
>> think it should be something like I wrote in my first mail in this
>> thread:
>>
>>> 1) Commit to staging. Other devs get the commit mail via the
>>> notifications@ list.
>>>
>>> 2) Wait for others to review (the commit mail is the notification that
>>> something needs to be reviewed). In case of large or sensitive
>>> changes, preferably send a mail to dev@ to draw extra attention.
>>>
>>> 3) If any other committer says +1, go ahead and "promote" (merge) to
>>> the live site.
>>>
>>> 4) If no response after 1 week? 3 days? ...? go ahead and promote to
>>> live site (lazy consensus).
>> As Brane suggested, let's do everything in this direction (test on
>> staging first, then merge to publish), except for security
>> announcements.
>>
>> And as Daniel suggested, let's serve the staging site via
>> https://subversion-staging.apache.org/ (I'd say we ask infra to set
>> this up for us).
>
> Sounds like a plan.
>
> -- Brane
Sorry, I dropped this on the floor trying to catch some other things.
I'll try to pick up the pieces now :-) ...
svn cp $URL/site/publish $URL/site/staging
open infra ticket for serving /site/staging on subversion-staging.a.o
put a short description of our desired workflow in /site/README
--
Johan
Received on 2017-10-19 22:05:25 CEST