On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:41:48PM +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> On 3/28/2011 5:28 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:20:48AM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> >> On 2011-03-14T19:49:29, Andrew Beekhof <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>> I suspect you want b) with maybe 6 people for redundancy.
> >>> The pull request workflow should be well suited to a project like this
> >>> and impose minimal overhead.
> >> I prefer b as well, since it adds another review step. (Should we use
> >> the github.com code review tools?)
> > OK. It seems like nobody's that much interesting in this, so we
> > can just as well go with option b).
> WFM of course.
Woman FIDE Master?
> > Fabio, I'd like to get the commit access rights. Florian Haas and
> > Lars Ellenberg have also been frequently reviewing user
> > contributions, so they should get commit rights too. I understand
> > that Florian already has that. Lars is about to create a
> > github.com account and he'll send you later his account name.
> You will need to talk to Andrew for this. I am not the owner of the repo.
I guess that Andrew's listening.
> For now I did merge bits from Florian and I can do it while Andrew will
> allow accounts to commit.
> >> Oh, and we can use the ha-wg-technical mailing list for cross-project
> >> coordination ;-)
> > Yes, but the list is very new and some people who may be affected
> > are perhaps not all subscribed.
> Letīs make sure that the message is sent again to the mailing lists, we
> can clearly still collect patches on the old lists for two/three months
> while we transition.
I actually expected the ha-wg-technical list to be low volume
and for "project coordination" and similar, not for daily