On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Monday, 29 December 2014 09:50:06 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately allowing force pushes is an extremely messy business
>> with the hooks - so we're unable to do this (for maintenance reasons
>> among others).
>
>
> Could you pl
On Monday, 29 December 2014 09:50:06 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
Unfortunately allowing force pushes is an extremely messy business
with the hooks - so we're unable to do this (for maintenance reasons
among others).
Could you please elaborate on this one?
The only reason I remember ever hearing
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Matthew Dawson wrote:
> On December 25, 2014 08:21:05 PM Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> > The way I see it, there are two reasonable alternatives with the current
>> > setup:
>> >
>> > 1) Everybody can create, delete and force-push to all branches except the
>> > "reserved
On December 25, 2014 08:21:05 PM Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > The way I see it, there are two reasonable alternatives with the current
> > setup:
> >
> > 1) Everybody can create, delete and force-push to all branches except the
> > "reserved" ones (kde/*, master, stable,... see the list).
> >
> > 2) P
On Thursday 25 December 2014 20:29:12 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:21:05 +1300
> Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > 3) People are free to create and delete to all branches below work/*.
> > Creation and deletion of branches outside this would be limited to
> > project admins (releas
El Dijous, 25 de desembre de 2014, a les 20:29:12, Thomas Friedrichsmeier va
escriure:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:21:05 +1300
> Ben Cooksley wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > 1) Everybody can create, delete and force-push to all branches
> > > except the "reserved" ones (kde/*, master, stable,... see the lis
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:21:05 +1300
Ben Cooksley wrote:
[...]
> > 1) Everybody can create, delete and force-push to all branches
> > except the "reserved" ones (kde/*, master, stable,... see the list).
> >
> > 2) People are free to create, delete and force-push to all branches
> > below my/$usernam
On Thursday, 25 December 2014 08:21:05 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
In essence, yes - those are the two possible options we have.
Force pushing will *still* be prohibited under this proposal as it
stands (and would be a CoC violation if done).
Hi Ben,
this is a very strong statement. I'm believe t
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Christian Mollekopf
wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 December 2014 00.04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
>> thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
>> manage.
>>
>> T
On Wednesday 24 December 2014 00.04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
> thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
> manage.
>
> The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
> de
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 01:57:15 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately i'm not sure if Gitolite's ACL mechanisms let us
>> differentiate between tags and branches so if we allow anyone to
>> delete branches they'll probably be ab
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 01:57:15 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
Unfortunately i'm not sure if Gitolite's ACL mechanisms let us
differentiate between tags and branches so if we allow anyone to
delete branches they'll probably be able to do the same for tags.
Are the generated config files or t
Hi!
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:11:46 +1300
Ben Cooksley wrote:
> That brings the list of protected branches requested thus far to:
>
> master
> frameworks
> KDE/*
> Applications/*
> Plasma/*
> Calligra/*
>
> Any others?
Extragear apps may have different names for release series branches. For
RKWar
El Dimecres, 24 de desembre de 2014, a les 10:48:43, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
> On Wednesday 24 December 2014 13:57:15 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > Unfortunately i'm not sure if Gitolite's ACL mechanisms let us
> > differentiate between tags and branches so if we allow anyone to
> > delete branches the
El Dimecres, 24 de desembre de 2014, a les 14:05:54, Ben Cooksley va escriure:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 06:27:01 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> >> El Dimarts, 23 de desembre de 2014, a les 14:48:21, Sebastian Kügler va
> >>
> >> escr
On Wednesday 24 December 2014 13:57:15 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Unfortunately i'm not sure if Gitolite's ACL mechanisms let us
> differentiate between tags and branches so if we allow anyone to
> delete branches they'll probably be able to do the same for tags.
Then it's definitely something to pay a
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, Ben Cooksley wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
>> thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
>> manage.
>>
>> The first seems the le
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 06:27:01 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>> El Dimarts, 23 de desembre de 2014, a les 14:48:21, Sebastian Kügler va
>>
>> escriure:
>> > On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 00:04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> > > The first s
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 December 2014 17:45:23 Milian Wolff wrote:
>> +1 to all of the above. What about tags btw? In KDevelop e.g. it would only
>> be a nuisance if someone would delete one of our "stable" branches, but
>> deleting one of the relea
On Tuesday 23 December 2014 17:45:23 Milian Wolff wrote:
> +1 to all of the above. What about tags btw? In KDevelop e.g. it would only
> be a nuisance if someone would delete one of our "stable" branches, but
> deleting one of the release tags would be ugly as I'd then need to figure
> out what co
On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 17:29:05 Ivan Čukić wrote:
> > I'd add Applications/* and Plasma/* to this.
> >
> >Would it be possible to add the Calligra/* release branches to that
>
> Seems that release branches are starting with capital letters. Would that
> be possible and sufficient for the d
On Wednesday 24 December 2014 00:04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
> thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
> manage.
>
> The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
> de
On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 06:27:01 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dimarts, 23 de desembre de 2014, a les 14:48:21, Sebastian Kügler va
>
> escriure:
> > On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 00:04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > > The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
> > > de
> I'd add Applications/* and Plasma/* to this.
>Would it be possible to add the Calligra/* release branches to that
Seems that release branches are starting with capital letters. Would that be
possible and sufficient for the deletable-branch heuristic?
--
Cheerio,
Ivan
KDE, ivan.cukic at k
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, Ben Cooksley wrote:
Hi all,
As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
manage.
The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
delete branches on our mainline r
El Dimarts, 23 de desembre de 2014, a les 14:48:21, Sebastian Kügler va
escriure:
> On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 00:04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
> > delete branches on our mainline repositories, except for certain
> > protected
El Dimecres, 24 de desembre de 2014, a les 00:04:22, Ben Cooksley va escriure:
> Hi all,
>
> As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
> thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
> manage.
>
> The first seems the least contentious: allowing al
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 00:04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
> delete branches on our mainline repositories, except for certain
> protected branches (like "master" and "KDE/*" for instance).
I'd add "frameworks" to that, it has a
On Wednesday 24 December 2014 00:04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
> delete branches on our mainline repositories, except for certain
> protected branches (like "master" and "KDE/*" for instance).
>
> Any suggestions or variations on this
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 12:04:22 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
delete branches on our mainline repositories, except for certain
protected branches (like "master" and "KDE/*" for instance).
Any suggestions or variations on this?
Hi all,
As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
manage.
The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
delete branches on our mainline repositories, except for certain
protected br
31 matches
Mail list logo
