> In fact, it is a much less critical decision which host to chose than > it may seem. After creating the repository, the main developers don't > have to visit the web pages of the host any more. The only thing they > have to do is to push the changes to all the git hosts geany will use > (it could be sourceforge, github and gitorious in parallel - it will > be up to the contributors which one they'll chose [probably github or > gitorious because these can host their own clones]).
Can they create a local clone of a repo on some other server, without having to create a project? That would be good!! This can even be > automated if the push is made on your own server and then propagated > by some script to all the mirrors. The web pages of the host will be > visited only by the contributors who want to create their own clone > (and from this point they can also forget about the web interface). > There are features like "merge request" at gitorious that notify the > maintainter about the merge from a contributor, but this can be > disabled so the only way the contributor will ask for merging his work > will be through the mailing list and publishing url of his repository > (wherever it is located). > Thats closer to the current way of working and is better IMO for pathes that are more than one-liners, some explanation of what the change is and what it does is useful. > Git is a distributed VCS - it doesn't matter where the user pulls from > - whether it's some host like gitorious, the official repository, or a > local clone on your machine - the mirrors should just be kept up to > date. And for instance if github is not officially supported and there > is some github lover, nobody prevents him from pulling from the > official repository and pushing to a github clone so he keeps it more > or less up to date (I did the same with the current geany gitorious > repository [I just don't keep it up to date, but I could of course] - > there will be no difference for people if they pull from there or your > official git mirror). And if you dislike one host and want to move to > another one, you'll just move the repository there - all the user's > local clones will be still valid, they'll just have to start pulling > from a different url. Which confuses everyone, so it shouldn't happen too often. > > So the question should rather be WHETHER to move and not WHERE to move > - the latter is much less important at this point. The only thing I'd > like to see is that one of the repositories makes it possible to > create personal clones for external developers. > Agree Cheers Lex > Cheers, > > Jiri > _______________________________________________ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel