Am 19.06.2010 18:22, schrieb Chow Loong Jin:
On Saturday 19,June,2010 11:22 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:59:11 +0800
Chow Loong Jin<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:43 +0200
Enrico Tröger<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:30:24 +0200, Jiří wrote:
This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use
git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily,
then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors)
will be harder to realize.
I doubt we want that.
Who should be "our Linus"?
I can't do that and I guess Nick also not. And I also don't see any
advantage for Geany with such a scenario.
I'd rather keep the existing way of committing: a couple of people
have write access to trunk (or then master). They commit their
changes and patches and whatever.
Regards,
Enrico
Then let's not go the Linus route. We can always adopt a working model
as follows, which I've attempted to translate from the svn workflow as
best as I can:
We host Geany (git) on sourceforge.net. Developers who have push
access (i.e. the ones who currently have commit access to svn) can
push new commits there.
Contributors:-
1. Clone the git repository from sourceforge.net
2. Do their work locally, and produce commits of the fixes/new
features they implement.
3. They then submit these back to you via:
* Mailing list: git format-patch can generate patches formatted
properly for this purpose.
* Remotely hosted branches: gitorious.org/github.com can be very
useful for these, no matter how much you hate them. It'd be worth
having a mirror of Geany on gitorious.org/github.com to allow for
users to perform remote-cloning and pushing of new commits, so
that you can either rebase or merge these back into the main tree
hosted at sourceforge.net.
This is correct, but I don't see any advantage of using git/bzr,
mercural, bitkeeper or whatever in favor of subversion of doing this.
Point #2 isn't really feasible with svn, for more than one patch at a time. And
then these patches can get outdated and fail to apply, requiring the person who
wrote the patch to keep maintaining it until the patch is committed.
The main flaw of SVN IMO. It basically forces you to have multiple
checkouts, each having the double size of the source code.
Of course, git format-patch can be done with geany still using git-svn, but how
many developers do you want to see using git-svn before switching from svn to
git? I think most of us already do, in geany's case. Hence, this discussion.
Yes, that's the point. Many of us mess with git-svn (an additional
hurdle) while we could simply switch to git and make it easier for most
people.
Best regards.
_______________________________________________
Geany-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
