On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +0000, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning > and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done > anything with the history I only added one commit which will never conflict > with upstream unless you add a .Travis.yml file :)
I don't think merge conflicts are the problem here. If the GitHub
mirror claims to be a mirror but adds an additional commit B:
-o---o---o---A notmuch/master
\
B github/master
Someone who takes the “mirror” claim at face value may use
github/master as the base for some feature:
-o---o---o---A notmuch/master
\
B github/master
\
C---o---o some-feature
Now when they submit the patches to this list, they might send a patch
series that drags in B (probably not what the some-feature author
wanted). Alternatively, they might send a patch series starting with
C and say “this is based on B”, and anyone who's only following the
main repo thinks, “What is B? I don't have that commit.”.
You'll also have to continuously rebase github/master to keep A on top
of notmuch/master, which means any feature branches built on
github/master will *also* have to be continuously rebased:
-o---o---o---A---D notmuch/master
\
A' github/master
\
B'---o---o some-feature
Keeping a fork with commits that aren't upstream is fine, and
maintaining a fork with an additional .Travis.yml file will probably
be pretty easy, but calling that fork a mirror is going to cause
needless confusion.
Cheers,
Trevor
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
