On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 3/14/15, Ron W wrote:
> >
> > The key difference is that, in git, the puller can force the in coming
> > commits to be remapped into branches of their own. That is, I could
> commit
> > my changes to "trunk" in my clone, then when the oth
On 16 March 2015 at 23:08, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:01:21PM +0100, mario wrote:
>> "Social network" is a nice metaphor. But it's also just a side-effect
>> of having a data silo.
>
> Actually, I think that's the far bigger item. GitHub has managed
> something which S
Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:02:18 +0200 John Found :
>
> IMO, everything is in reverse. GitHub is not popular, because Git is
> great SCM. Git is popular because is used by GitHub!
>
> Notice that GitHub is not only repository hosting. It is a social
> network for developers. That is why it is popular. An
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:01:21PM +0100, mario wrote:
> "Social network" is a nice metaphor. But it's also just a side-effect
> of having a data silo.
Actually, I think that's the far bigger item. GitHub has managed
something which SourceForge never had -- a stable service.
> Most developer i
> i, for one, am glad that _our_ Benevolent Dictator behaves like an empathic
> human being in public.
I second this statement. :-)
Cheers.
- Vikrant
On 14 March 2015 at 18:43, Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Graeme Pietersz
> wrote:
>>
>> There is a long and interesting
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:45 AM, John Found wrote:
>
> The first step towards such achievement is to allow all Fossil users to
> exists in
> one common username space.
> OpenID authentication could help to make this without big effort.
>
OpenID support would be a nice addition.
But, even in an e
On 14 March 2015 at 18:48, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Richard Hipp on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:05:07 -0400:
>
>> Am I wrong to think that clicking through the changes in a project
>> (not necessarily from the beginning, but from some signification
>> event, say the most recent rele
>> But, for example fossil can provide some way to connect the stand alone
>> repositories and developers in some kind of distributed peer-to-peer network
>> and
>> to provide some interaction - I don't know - maybe some voting, messaging,
>> clone tracking, collaborative environment, pull request
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:02:18 +0200
John Found wrote:
> But, for example fossil can provide some way to connect the stand alone
> repositories and developers in some kind of distributed peer-to-peer network
> and
> to provide some interaction - I don't know - maybe some voting, messaging,
> clo
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 3/14/15, Ron W > wrote:
> >
> > The key difference is that, in git, the puller can force the in coming
> > commits to be remapped into branches of their own. That is, I could
> commit
> > my changes to "trunk" in my clone, then when the other
On 3/14/15, Ron W wrote:
>
> The key difference is that, in git, the puller can force the in coming
> commits to be remapped into branches of their own. That is, I could commit
> my changes to "trunk" in my clone, then when the other person pulls my
> changes, she/he can tell git to map my changes
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:28 AM, j. van den hoff
wrote:
my understanding was that a github "fork" is nothing but a clone and not
> "really" part of the original project, no? so it really is not comparable
> to a branch (be it `git' or `fossil'), no?
>
Almost the same as pulling from a clone of a
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Graeme Pietersz
wrote:
> The advantage is that anyone can create a Github fork of a public
> project, work on it, and then submit pull requests, without ever being
> given commit access to the original repo. You can have untrusted
> collaborators and review all t
Thus said Richard Hipp on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:05:07 -0400:
> Am I wrong to think that clicking through the changes in a project
> (not necessarily from the beginning, but from some signification
> event, say the most recent release) in chronological order is
> something that peo
Richard Hipp wrote:
It seems like every check-in information page has a "parent" link.
But I can't find any "children" links. What am I missing? When
reviewing the changes to a project, how to you move forward in time?
Internally, Git stores only the child->parent relation, but not the
paren
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Graeme Pietersz
wrote:
> There is a long and interesting discussion between Linux Torvalds and
> others about the merits of the Github approach here:
>
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674
If that can be called a discussion. It's Lin
On 14/03/15 17:55, jungle Boogie wrote:
On 14 March 2015 at 05:07, Graeme Pietersz wrote:
On 14/03/15 15:04, Stephan Beal wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 AM, j. van den hoff
wrote:
really a test case for "how does github feel to a newbie". answer:
awkward, to say the very least.
FW
On 14 March 2015 at 05:07, Graeme Pietersz wrote:
>
>
> On 14/03/15 15:04, Stephan Beal wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 AM, j. van den hoff
> wrote:
>>
>> really a test case for "how does github feel to a newbie". answer:
>> awkward, to say the very least.
>
>
> FWIW i have had to use it
On 14/03/15 15:04, Stephan Beal wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 AM, j. van den hoff
mailto:veedeeh...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
really a test case for "how does github feel to a newbie". answer:
awkward, to say the very least.
FWIW i have had to use it a dozen times and still fee
IMO, everything is in reverse. GitHub is not popular, because Git is great
SCM. Git is popular because is used by GitHub!
Notice that GitHub is not only repository hosting. It is a social network for
developers. That is why it is popular. And every SCM used in such popular
social network will beco
Stephan Beal writes:
> a git fork can be pulled (via a "pull request") into the original just like
> merging a branch, so the the effect is similar (not identical).
These days most of the FOSS is hosted at github and for someone wanting
to contribute to usual scenario is:
1) clone original repo
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 AM, j. van den hoff wrote:
> really a test case for "how does github feel to a newbie". answer:
> awkward, to say the very least.
FWIW i have had to use it a dozen times and still feel that way.
> this is quite different to first time encounter with `fossil'. so
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:18:35 +0100, Stephan Beal
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
I tried going to the "network" graph
(https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite/network) which seems similar to the
Fossil timeline graph, only sideways.
I needed to use github only o
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> I tried going to the "network" graph
> (https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite/network) which seems similar to the
> Fossil timeline graph, only sideways.
The network is primarily intended to show fork-related relationships. i.e.
whose fork was
I periodically go to sites like GitHub looking for ideas on how Fossil
might be improved. So just now I was browsing the SQLite mirror that
somebody has put there. And I asked the simple question: How did this
project start? (I already know the answer, of course, but I'm curious
to see how someb
25 matches
Mail list logo
