Re: branching

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:30:32PM +0200, Mike Solomon wrote:
>> 
>> (quotes from David)
>> 
>> The basic idea behind that is not to make confrontations nicer but
>> reduce the necessity for them by establishing playing fields with
>> different authorities.  So that people can get work done without
>> endangering the release, and I can get releases done without pissing
>> people off as a prerequisite.
>
> I agree with this idea, but I feel like I'm missing something.
> How would regular git branches be insufficient for this?  Is it
> simply the lack of GUB for branches?
>
> I mean, is the problem a technical or social one?  My gut feeling
> is that this is a social issue, so any technical wish-lists are a
> red herring.

We won't make social issues go away by creating policies.  Basically we
have limited possibilities to change how amicably people react when they
are stepping on each others' toes.

Creating more room is a technical measure.  It will not change the kind
of social interaction we perceive as problematic, but it will still
serve to reduce the opportunities for it to occur and cause problems.

> That said, I admit that I haven't even skimmed the patch countdowns in
> the past few months, let alone read any arguments on -devel.

Mike frequently referenced a Rietveld review as an example in his last
mails to the list.

-- 
David Kastrup