On Nov 24, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Denis Ovsienko <de...@ovsienko.info> wrote:
> So the problem is to let GitHub do its good things to tcpdump yet to protect > from the bad ones. To me it seems that for the next few years the best > balance between survivability and convenience would be in continuing to use > both GitHub and bpf.tcpdump.org, but with one important change. The changes > should normally be committed to GitHub instance only, as that's currently the > environment that is most convenient for contributors of varying levels of > experience. Then bpf.tcpdump.org would not experience auto-merging > difficulties any more and with the two repositories being 100% identical What mechanism would be used to ensure that any change committed to GitHub will be pushed/pulled to bpf.tcpdump.org in a timely fashion when possible (with catchup pushes/pulls if it becomes impossible for a while due to some problem)? > the read-only choice between the two will become again purely theoretical and > a matter of taste. But doesn't "The changes should normally be committed to GitHub instance only" mean that the bpf.tcpdump.org repository should be treated as read-only for contributors - presumably including core contributors? _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
