Something I would like to stress, aside from philosophical considerations, is that the new process is working. There is not a single patch stuck in the queue (couple of old ones from Walter but they are just blocked on another set he submitted, which is going to land soon).
On 9 June 2013 11:51, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 June 2013 01:38, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > >> On 06/07/2013 09:10 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> > No, just glucose. You can see the exact list of modules on >> > https://github.com/sugarlabs/ >> >> By the way, what is "sugarlabs", a shared account? >> >> > It's an organization > > https://github.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations > > >> Wouldn't this subvert GitHub's philosophy that all forks are created >> equal, by creating one that looks more official than the others? >> > > In my experience the large majority of github repository has an official > repo, very visibly linked from the project official website. For example > > http://nodejs.org/ > > People fork the official repo and send patches through pull requests. > > Which is exactly what we are doing. > > >> If it seems that this approach wouldn't be feasible for a project with >> many collaborators, check out http://git.kernel.org . Most of the repos >> under kernel/git/ are clones of the kernel tree with various patches >> applied. The most "official" tree that I can think of is >> kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git, the one maintained by Linus. There are of >> course many other public forks of the Linux kernel hosted on other sites. >> > > I can't think of a single github repository that follows the kernel > development model. I'm sure there but I'm also pretty sure it's not the > normal development model for github repositories. > > >> I'm making the assumption that switching to GitHub was motivated in part >> by the desire to adopt the bazaar development style. If it's not the >> case, then GitHub may not be a very good fit for a central repository >> shared by multiple committers. >> > > If with bazaar development model you mean kernel like, I don't think that > was one of the reasons. But as I said I don't think github pushes that > model either. It's pretty similar to gitorious really, just a better > implementation of it :) > > In general I don't think kernel development practices are a good model for > our community, as proved by the attempt to push their patch review > practices and badly failing. We are a very different kind of communities. > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel