GENIVI Git Strategy Meeting Minutes

Walt Miner wminer at
Wed Jan 13 16:55:10 EST 2016

Will there be any follow up to this?  I will say I like the gerrit approach
because it encompasses both branch management and code review. You can
incorporate email patches into the work flow as well.


On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Jeremiah Foster <
jeremiah.foster at> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Thanks again Magnus et. al. for bringing this topic up.
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Paul Sherwood <
> paul.sherwood at> wrote:
>> Hi Magnus,
>> thanks for this... some comments inline...
>> As I said at the meeting, what Lilli described seems fine as a
>> recommended workflow, particularly for github-based projects.
>> I wonder if it would make sense to add diagrams to the doc, based on what
>> Lilli drew during the meeting while describing use-cases.
>> WRT the 'strategy' discussion I think there are some underlying approach
>> questions, which need to be clarified:
>> - how to deal with projects where we (genivi, agl) are not the ultimate
>> upstream, but need to modify the code and maintain those modifications
>> - github verses alternative approaches
>> - code review via pull-requests (github, gitlab), or gerrit or something
>> else
>>> Jeremiah highlighted the wide variety of projects GENIVI is running in
>>> several different environments, and pointed out that it can be hard
>>> for people to move from todays patch-based solution to something that
>>> is pull request-based.
>> Absolutely - this depends very much on how the project team prefers to
>> work.
> Here's one example of the type of workflow that I was referring to when I
> spoke about a "series of patches", the following is an excerpt from this
> page:
> [PATCH 0/3] Proposal of ivi_share protocol   Tanibata, Nobuhiko (ADITJ/SWG)
> [PATCH 1/3] protocol: Add new protocol to share ivi-surface   Tanibata,
> Nobuhiko (ADITJ/SWG)
> [PATCH 2/3] ivi-share: Initial implementation of ivi_share protocol.
> Tanibata, Nobuhiko (ADITJ/SWG)
> [PATCH 3/3] ivi-layermanagement-examples: an example of ivi_share
> Tanibata, Nobuhiko (ADITJ/SWG)
> This series of emails, each with its own numbered patch, is much easier to
> deal with than a single large patch for example. While one can easily break
> up pull requests on GitHub as well, there are additional advantages to this
> format. Firstly, git provides convenient tools to create this type of patch
> set: Secondly, it also provides a
> means to consume such patch sets;
> For those who spend a lot of time in git and working on mailing lists
> (which is pretty much the de facto approach for large Open Source
> projects), this work flow is efficient. I don't know that GitHub provides a
> similar workflow and I would hesitate to try and dictate tooling choices
> for developers who are productive.
> [snip]
> Regards,
> Jeremiah
> _______________________________________________
> genivi-projects mailing list
> genivi-projects at

Walt Miner
Engineering Project Manager
The Linux Foundation
mobile: +1.847.502.7087
skype: vstarwalt

Visit us at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the genivi-projects mailing list