Re: [matplotlib-devel] github devel question

On 02/25/2011 10:01 AM, John Hunter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ryan May<rm...@gm...>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Darren Dale<dsd...@gm...>  wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Benjamin Root<ben...@ou...>  wrote:
>>>> Ok, I am still learning quite a bit about git, please bear with me.
>>>>
>>>> I am having difficulty completing a pull request that I opened.
>>>
>>> In general, I don't think we should close our own pull requests. It
>>> short-circuits the review process.
>>
>> Agreed in principle. However, do we as devs want to get/give reviews
>> on every change that fixes typos in the docs or fixes stupid bugs in
>> examples? I think there's a point of diminishing returns.
>
> I just want to throw out there that in the migration to github, we
> never officially said we were going to switch the development process.
>   In fact, we said the opposite. After the migration,  Jarrod suggested
> the pull request workflow as espoused in gitwash, and I am happy to
> experiment with it, but only to the extent that "it works", ie we are
> getting fast enough code reviews and pull requests closed that
> development is slowed significantly.  In our experience on sf, we
> weren't doing a good job keeping up with submitted requests by
> non-developers on the trackers, much less reviewing the core devs'
> contributions.  Let he who thinks they can keep up with MD and JJ step
> forward...
>
> JDH

Elaborating a bit: mpl historically has had a very loose management and 
a free approach to changes (Thanks, John!).  I think it has served us 
well.  The move to git permits a continuation of this style (though for 
a smaller set of committers), while facilitating more structured 
procedures; it doesn't force us to change, it makes it easier to use a 
range of styles, as appropriate, and perhaps gently nudges us towards 
more review prior to committing.

As always, review is not a one-time opportunity.  Committed changes 
always can be reviewed, and new changes made as needed.

This is evolution, not revolution.

Eric