[Scummvm-devel] New engine merging procedure proposal

[Eugene Sandulenko]

On 20 June 2011 11:38, Max Horn <max at quendi.de> wrote:
> Yes, I fully understand that my behavior seemed like I was "OK", and so let me emphasis that I am not trying to backpedal here, or claim that it was merged against my expressed will. Rather, I chose not to express my will, and to go along, since quite obviously you and some others were very strongly interested in merging this ASAP. In the past, I probably would have put up a longer discussion. So, in case it got across badly: I don't think you, Eugene, did anything wrong by considering me to have agreed.
Yes, we are on the same page here.

And yes, I agree that the formal public 'OK to merge' from all
co-leaders will make everything clean and neat.

>> The place
>> where those would take place in my opinion is irrelevant especially in
>> the light of the fact that we're merging back the history.
>
> Huh? Sorry, I don't understand this last sentence. What history are we merging where? Are you talking about the original dreamweb asm code?
I am talking about merging back the development history of an engine
which was developed outside of the tree,

This is what exactly happened with Dreamweb. I.e. commit-wise it would
be no difference if Vladimir would commit fixes to your suggestions on
his own branch, or in the master repository as it happened. Both would
lead to the same commit pattern.

What I forgot to mention that we have to add to the procedure in
addition to have proper Wiki page with status and TODOs:

 - The engine must be in active phase of development with its
developers willing to support and maintain it.

This is not the case with number of other off-tree engines, some of
which are stuck at 95% of readiness state. It is a pity we do not have
them finished, and I was and am specifically against the merge due to
this very state.

Since everybody is all for this nice proposal from LordHoto, I suggest
to move it to Wiki and follow from now on.


Eugene