-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Process discussion for keeping in sync with main repository #7
Comments
I see you already did that :-) |
cc @arokem |
RE "Merging back": Would it not be preferable to create a PR on the main BIDS repository that pulls from the relevant branch on this fork, rather than explicitly pushing that branch to the main BIDS repository (which, as you say, requires write access there) prior to creation of the PR? This information probably also needs to go into a contributing guidelines file, so that anybody outside of the main development group can more easily find the relevant information. I just wrote one for MRtrix3, so I can probably cut that down and modify to suit. |
@oesteban @francopestilli: How much time & effort do you think you will be contributing to this fork ongoing? Would you prefer if I were to take on more of a maintainer role? |
@Lestropie I'm doing some housekeeping now, but I am taking a break the next two weeks. Totally cool if you want to take on the maintainer role :) @effigies I believe your first code snippet should be amended:
|
Yes, I think you're right that we need to add a fetch to that first section. |
@Lestropie Feel free to add this to CONTRIBUTING.md, if it seems good to you. When it comes time to merge. Also, IMO, if somebody maintains a BEP repository to the point of being ready to re-merge, then I think they should be given permissions to push that branch directly to the main repository. The nice thing about pushing to the main repository is that we can set up ReadTheDocs to show a rendered copy that updates as we make final changes, rather than digging through Circle artifacts. |
Just wanted to start a discussion about how to operate a BEP like this separate from the main spec, particularly with respect to keeping things in sync so that when you're getting ready for merging back in, merge conflicts don't arise. Because this was created with the full git history, this should be fairly easy, technically speaking.
So I'm going to propose a model. Feel free to reject or adapt, but hopefully this will be helpful nonetheless.
Initial setup
I have done some initial work that I detailed in #6. That involved:
master
andcommon-derivatives
to this repositorybep-016
branch, that I propose treating as equivalent to your master branch. All PRs should go against that.bep-016
, so that PR can be picked back up with as little interruption as possible. (@Lestropie, please ask if you need help switching to that branch.)Maintaining
I would suggest that you identify one maintainer to periodically (perhaps weekly) update the
common-derivatives
andmaster
branches, so that changes in the main spec get reflected here, and makes any potential merge conflicts evident. To set up a new repository:To update:
As long as the
master
andcommon-derivatives
stay in sync, this should work smoothly. If things get messed up, I'm happy to help figure out what happened and get things back to a clean state.There's nothing wrong with multiple maintainers, but assigning one person (or one person at a time) might reduce the likelihood of messes.
Contributing
Otherwise, I would recommend you treat this like a normal repository, but with PRs against the
bep-016
branch.Merging back
When this PR is in a state where you're ready for final review to merge back into the primary spec, I would recommend the maintainer do:
This assumes you don't have a copy of the
bep-016
branch already on your local repository and that you have write access to the main repository.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: