On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Stefan Tauner firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
just to summarize my last email (since it's been over a week again): there was quite some work done behind the scenes for flashrom's git conversion that also included a proposed change in the development process in form of a second "main" branch named staging that would have been introduced to get patches up to a sane quality level faster.
What I had not anticipated was the strong wish to change the reviewing process/tools and the resulting surge of reviews and new (conflicting) changes. My plan was simply to take patches provided by any means (and thus lowering the barrier for contributing although that was only a bonus) polish them only minimally and then push them to staging to get them tested. The old (and already somewhat tested) patches would have had priority to keep conflicts low. This would have been done rather manually and without much interaction with others (there were practically no others in the last years :).
This seems to have been a simple misunderstanding with what the branches were for. The name "staging" implies that we're supposed to dump all of our patches there.
If you want those to be your own branches that you have exclusive commit rights for, we should be able to accommodate that. We can do as Antonio suggested in the other thread and use master for the typical git workflow where people send patches, and you can do with "staging" and "stable" as you please. Perhaps we should also prefix them with "stefanct-" so that there is no confusion about who the gatekeeper is.