- Commit bit. Yeah, I guess my assumption is there is prod repo and dev repo: all changesets go to dev and code pushes go from dev to prod. Bad assumption, I have a donkey problem? :-)
- all work showing up in dev repo? Uh... yeah. that way it doesn't get lost. seems reasonable to me.
That probably works well in a job setting ( esp. where peoples salaries are on the line ), probably won't in open source project.
I am thinking of cases ( yes, social cases. But screaming at people is harder in OSS ) where someone commits some horrible shit --author "Andrea Nall <my email address>" ( or even in a non-malicious case -- somebody accidentally commits their feature on one of my bookmarks and then a senior dev ( aka me or fu ), whose time would better be spent coding, has to untangle the mess )
My ( maybe slightly more informed, as I know the project ) assumptions as to on what was wanted with our workflow was that each developer would have their own dev repo ( which would have all the changes ), and then we'd pull only the complete and reviewed changesets either into a global dev repo or the prod repo.
no subject
That probably works well in a job setting ( esp. where peoples salaries are on the line ), probably won't in open source project.
I am thinking of cases ( yes, social cases. But screaming at people is harder in OSS ) where someone commits some horrible shit --author "Andrea Nall <my email address>" ( or even in a non-malicious case -- somebody accidentally commits their feature on one of my bookmarks and then a senior dev ( aka me or fu ), whose time would better be spent coding, has to untangle the mess )
My ( maybe slightly more informed, as I know the project ) assumptions as to on what was wanted with our workflow was that each developer would have their own dev repo ( which would have all the changes ), and then we'd pull only the complete and reviewed changesets either into a global dev repo or the prod repo.