On 16-May-2012 08:35:30 -0700 (PDT), Ben Fritz wrote: > Or, how about just a clone of the main Vim repository? Often runtime > file changes are related to changes in the Vim code.
Often? Vim has superb backward compatibility, and the thing that started this thread is adding @Spell support, something which was introduced years ago with Vim 7.0. > If we get going well enough we might even convince Bram to pull > runtime file changes directly. I would like to see runtime files treated the same way as all other Vim sources. Right now, no patches are published, and Bram just occasionally commits them to the repo. I think Bram is already busy enough with the core sources, so the only way for this to work without taxing him even more would be opening up the main repo for a set of long-term, trusted deputies. (Which, assuming there are such capable and willing volunteers, would be a good thing to avoid a potential bottleneck, and could eventually offer a faster development speed - also for Vim core. (Just take a look at the long todo list and patch queue.)) > I think I'd rather see it done with push/pull. If not everyone has > push access (I don't see why that shouldn't be the goal) each > maintainer could easily make their own clone and tell the main repo's > maintainer(s) "please pull revXXXXXX from my repository at YYYY". Ahem, if this depends on a main maintainer, we're back to where we are today: a single person point of failure. -- regards, ingo -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
