I see your point now. This is really about the Grit support :) I agree. Having tried the git support in the rubyforge origin (is that the right term?) just last weekend, it is obviously not working well, and I opened several tickets against it. I know Alex doesn't want to have external dependencies, but until someone has the time to fix it right (which isn't me), the grit alternative should be supported.
The only thing I'm not sure of is how much harder it is for you do maintain your branch updated if ccrb still remains on rubyforge for now. A lot harder? A little harder? It seems like, with the nature of git, it should not be a huge deal, but I don't understand the details of branching and merging enough to know myself. -- Chad On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Ben Burkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point I was trying to make is that i think my fork is important enough > and used by enough people to be a branch off origin. I know you guys are > working hard on getting ccrb running the git stuff without relying on grit, > but as of now, the grit version works most anyone not running windows, which > i suspect is most people who use ccrb with git anyways. Until the grit-less > ccrb is working with git on all platforms, I think it would be a win-win for > everyone if the grit branch was part of the official repository. I don't > have a problem maintianing a seperate fork, and i could honestly care less > about getting a commit bit to ccrb, I just feel that making this move would > help alot of rails developers move to git, which is better for everyone. _______________________________________________ Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users
