Agree too for Codehaus as main scm.
Even if I prefer git too, community consensus/majority must win.
Maintaining a fork @github is not really complicated for folks who
want to do this.
We can do it :
* with a Jenkins instance and tru scripts automatically push changes
from codehaus to github. (I'm
Hi folks,
I'm sometimes using Github to work closely with someone having no commit
rights on Codehaus but as main SCM I still see Codehaus.
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 30.08.11 10:42, Tony Chemit wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:22:20 +0200
Anders Hammar wrote:
+1 for having the main scm a
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:22:20 +0200
Anders Hammar wrote:
> +1 for having the main scm at Codehaus.
>
+1 for me I have nothing against Github but I would prefer everything
stay @ Codehaus one place is good enough IMHO.
Tools offered @ Codehaus are very good, why moving out ?
> /Anders
>
> On M
+1 for having the main scm at Codehaus.
/Anders
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 23:58, Christopher Hunt wrote:
> Let us please keep on the track of discussing the problem as using Github's
> git repo as the main scm for a Mojo project as opposed to using The Codehaus
> git repo; the latter being desir
Let us please keep on the track of discussing the problem as using Github's git
repo as the main scm for a Mojo project as opposed to using The Codehaus git
repo; the latter being desired for the sake of committer approval.
-
To
x27;m failing to follow the argument you are making.
>
> --benson
>
>
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > --- On Mon, 8/29/11, Christopher Hunt > (mailto:hu...@internode.on.net)> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Christopher Hunt >
g.
--benson
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Mon, 8/29/11, Christopher Hunt wrote:
>
>> From: Christopher Hunt
>> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] [DISCUSS] move back github stuff to codehaus
>> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
>> Date: Monday, August 29, 2011, 9:11 PM
>&
f his own stuff...
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 8/29/11, Christopher Hunt wrote:
> From: Christopher Hunt
> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] [DISCUSS] move back github stuff to codehaus
> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
> Date: Monday, August 29, 2011, 9:11 PM
> On 30/08/2011, at 6:51 AM, Julien
&
On 30/08/2011, at 6:51 AM, Julien Ponge wrote:
>
> Take advantage of Git and GitHub for the ease of collaboration, but retain a
> reference Git repository at Codehaus where only commiters can make pushes
> (possible from a GitHub fork where they already filtered incoming
> contributions). That
I agree 100% Nicolas.
Take advantage of Git and GitHub for the ease of collaboration, but retain a
reference Git repository at Codehaus where only commiters can make pushes
(possible from a GitHub fork where they already filtered incoming
contributions). That sounds like a win-win approach.
2011/8/29 Christopher Hunt
> On 30/08/2011, at 4:09 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> > I think the github bit is part of the issue, also I think the release
> > process should be left up to the plugin at this point and mojo's ought
> > to do away with the whole vote, wait a couple of days, release
I'm in favour for the voting (waiting 3 days is no crisis) - and often
people find stuff I've not found yet.
I also see your point about access control.
So I guess a good middle way would be to use git hosted at the Haus.
2011/8/29 Christopher Hunt
> On 30/08/2011, at 4:09 AM, Jesse McConnell w
On 30/08/2011, at 4:09 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> I think the github bit is part of the issue, also I think the release
> process should be left up to the plugin at this point and mojo's ought
> to do away with the whole vote, wait a couple of days, release
> process. It makes sense on maven co
t; To be clear: codehaus also offers git repo hosting. So I see no reason to not
> use GIT.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Mon, 8/29/11, Jesse Farinacci wrote:
>
>> From: Jesse Farinacci
>> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] [DISCUSS] move back github stuff to codehaus
>
To be clear: codehaus also offers git repo hosting. So I see no reason to not
use GIT.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 8/29/11, Jesse Farinacci wrote:
> From: Jesse Farinacci
> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] [DISCUSS] move back github stuff to codehaus
> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
> Date: Mo
Greetings,
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Sure the committers of Sonatype will do their best to maintain it, but I
> agree with Mark: Codehaus would be a better place, either svn or git ;)
I think it's probably a good idea to keep things in one place. Please,
git is ju
re the committers of Sonatype will do their best to maintain it, but I
> agree with Mark: Codehaus would be a better place, either svn or git ;)
>
> -Robert
>
> > From: hu...@internode.on.net
> > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:47:08 +1000
> > To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
>
rom:
hu...@internode.on.net
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:47:08 +1000
> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] [DISCUSS] move back github stuff to codehaus
>
> I concur that we should be using the repo at Codehaus; that's what it is for
> of course.
>
> Do
I concur that we should be using the repo at Codehaus; that's what it is for of
course.
Do you have a list of the Codehaus Mojo projects that use github as the scm?
-
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircl
Hi Mark,
> I'm pretty often get pissed lately because a lot codehaus projects moved away
> to github and got svn@codehaus shut down without proper noticing and clear
> governance. This left those projects basically in a situation where it is
> unclear where to maintain it.
I can speak for
Hi folks!
I'm pretty often get pissed lately because a lot codehaus projects moved away
to github and got svn@codehaus shut down without proper noticing and clear
governance. This left those projects basically in a situation where it is
unclear where to maintain it.
People which like to fix b
21 matches
Mail list logo
