-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Per the IRC meeting this morning (my time), I'd like to discuss possible changes to the LinuxCNC git management.
Let me start by saying I do not wish to do away with git.linuxcnc.org, nor do I have any particular desire to involve github in this whole process. So what do I think needs to change? Well, let's start with what exists now, which I see as: Tier 1) Anointed LinuxCNC developers with push access to git.linuxcnc.org. These are the "real guys" with the power to break everything and kill people. With great power comes great responsibility. Tier 2) People who have pestered or persisted enough to get push access to Michael Haberler's repository. I'm currently in this group, and don't mind. I don't _want_ to be a "tier-1" developer and assume the responsibility that comes with it. I just want to make my 3D printer work well without re-inventing 90% of what LinuxCNC does out of the box. Tier 3) Everyone else. It is currently difficult to "elegantly" share any updates with others. I can very easily clone git.linuxcnc.org to my box and make some changes, but then what? Do I post a patch to the mailing list (ignored and/or easily lost)? Do I open my local git repository to use by others (hard to setup, has security implications, and assumes that in addition to crafting a fix/update for LinuxCNC I'm also a network admin capable of safely running a public service on the internet)? Do I push a clone of the LinuxCNC git repository to somewhere like github, bitbucket, etc. and point folks to my changes there (seems a bit presumptuous at the least)? Basically, I don't care what happens as long as it is clear (ie: listed plainly wherever folks are pointed to git.linuxcnc.org to grab the code) what someone should do if they wish to modify the source and share their changes with others. This could be as simple as a statement that it is OK to clone the git repo to github or bitbucket or where-ever, a separate git area with open push access (chaos.linuxcnc.org, or perhaps "here_be_dragons"!), or some other option I haven't thought of. I just think the project as a whole will benefit from: * Having new potential contributions in some form of git repository to start with (makes push/pull/merge much easier than patches if and when it's time to pull updates into the official source tree) * Allowing officially sanctioned "free-form" development by anyone who shows an interest * An easy way for the free-form modifications to be shared with other users So... Does this sound reasonable? If so, what changes do we need to make it work? - -- Charles Steinkuehler char...@steinkuehler.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlHPaqoACgkQLywbqEHdNFw1+gCffTR47oBLVgKgn5SkEZjgfFQg G9sAoMPA24DH49JMk3IqriMNyoBcBZ1k =vMS7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
