Re: [RFA] Re: [RFC][patch 1/9] initial Python support

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com> writes:

Tom> How can we change our development process in git to make this
Tom> work simpler for you?

Thiago> Well, my suggestion is to stop using the git repo and move
Thiago> everything here to the mailing list. After the 1st (initial
Thiago> python support) and 2nd (export values) patches are accepted
Thiago> (and they seem to be close), I don't see a reason to keep
Thiago> working in a separate branch. But if you prefer to continue to
Thiago> use it, we can think of improvements to the process (like
Thiago> rebasing to a clean CVS HEAD, for instance).

I'm a bit reluctant to move purely to working from CVS.  This will
make it harder for us to work on things in concert, and will require a
lot of administrative overhead as well.  One thing that has been nice
about this project, so far, is that we can be fairly experimental and
we don't have to spend much time waiting... whereas my
cvs-head-hacking experience has been pretty much the opposite.

Thiago> sure if they are ready to be approved) send you a patches/
Thiago> directory suitable for use with quilt, and from there each of
Thiago> us drive his own patches to acceptance (there are one or two
Thiago> which have both our names in the changelog. We can have a duel
Thiago> at sunset to decide about those).

What if we used 'guilt' or 'StGIT' instead?  I have never tried these,
but they both seem to basically be git+quilt, where the patches can
easily be shared.  (Am I wrong about this?)

This would require anyone working on the git repository to use this
tool and to be careful about managing the patches.  But, that would
take the work off you and spread it around -- exactly what we want.

Tom