Re: gEDA-user: gEDA-dev: Dev list [was: Random thoughts onthe future interface of PCB]
Bert Timmerman wrote: > The > gEDA #1 can still keep the "golden" repositories on a file server in a > basement somewhere I am not convinced. We already have the semi fork by Peter C and real forks by others. How would additional repositories aid the inclusion of patches to the main tree? My impression is, it tends to do the opposite. Non official repos might aid cooperative hacking of none-devs. While this is nice, it does not seem to be the current bottle neck. ---<)kaimartin(>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak tel: +49-511-762-2895 Universität Hannover, Inst. für Quantenoptik fax: +49-511-762-2211 Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover http://www.iqo.uni-hannover.de GPG key:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Knaak+kmk&op=get ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gEDA-dev: Dev list [was: Random thoughts onthe future interface of PCB]
Hi Peter, > -Original Message- > From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org > [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Peter Clifton > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 9:04 PM > To: gEDA user mailing list > Cc: 'gEDA developer mailing list' > Subject: Re: gEDA-user: gEDA-dev: Dev list [was: Random > thoughts onthe future interface of PCB] > > On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 20:46 +0100, Bert Timmerman wrote: > > > > ... > > your personal dev-blog), on-line editing files, etc etc --> Github > > rocks, > ... > > > > Do you work advertising for GitHub in your spare time Bert? ;) > Yup, because I try to find a possible solution, and not add to the problem ;-) If it is a solution for gEDA and friends to get more developers, more contributions, speed-up development ... Github is free as in beer ... The gEDA #1 can still keep the "golden" repositories on a file server in a basement somewhere ... gEDA and friends can even keep the SF tracker system ... It's not based on competition, it's based on cooperation ... I guess no-one looses anything, it could be a win-win situation ... if it adds another burden and doesn't work then drop it, I will not have hard feelings, that is not in my nature ;-) Kind regards, Bert Timmerman. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gEDA-dev: Dev list [was: Random thoughts onthe future interface of PCB]
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 20:46 +0100, Bert Timmerman wrote: > ... > your personal dev-blog), on-line editing files, etc etc --> Github rocks, ... > Do you work advertising for GitHub in your spare time Bert? ;) -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gEDA-dev: Dev list [was: Random thoughts onthe future interface of PCB]
Hi all, > -Original Message- > From: geda-dev-boun...@moria.seul.org > [mailto:geda-dev-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of DJ Delorie > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:11 PM > To: gEDA developer mailing list > Cc: geda-user@moria.seul.org > Subject: Re: gEDA-dev: gEDA-user: Dev list [was: Random > thoughts onthe future interface of PCB] > > > > Perhaps the time has come to reconsider the role of and > access to the > > gEDA-dev list? How can we ensure that it doesn't collapse into an > > unproductive bikeshedfest again? > > I would be amenable to defining the geda-dev list as "those > who have commit access somewhere" (pcb, geda, icarus, etc) > and start being more open to new developers. GCC has various > levels of "maintainers" that perhaps we could emulate? There > are four levels (or were): > > 1. Global maintainers, who can do anything anywhere. ATM they're >listed as "global reviewers" who can approve anything but their own >patches, but we're not that big yet. > > 2. Area maintainers, who can do anything in their area. > > 3. Area reviewers, who can approve other people's patches in their >areas but not their own. > > 4. "Write after approval" - can commit if one of the above OKs it, >can't approve anything for anyone else. > > The current situation is we have a few #1, a few #2, and nobody else. > I'd like to build up the #3 and #4 groups. > > If the #3's and #4's (or anyone else for that matter) were to have thier own fork of the area they are involved with, and the #2's (and only if needed the #1's) could "git cherry-pick" from these forks (after discussion, prodding, tweaking etc. and final agreement) with a couple of mouse clicks that would be nice Github has automated pull requests, fork queues, an integrated issues system, configurable post commit hooks, comments on commits, wiki pages (for your personal dev-blog), on-line editing files, etc etc --> Github rocks, just have a look at https://github.com/features/projects Just my EUR 0.02 Kind regards, Bert Timmerman. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
