On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Steve Losh <[email protected]> wrote:
> I added an issue on GitHub about forking, which I know you've seen. It's > not an easy problem but I think it would be a nice sign of respect to script > authors to fork their repos instead of just mirroring flat files. > Agree 100% but there are some complexities... Some discussion on the GitHub issue: http://github.com/vim-scripts/vim-scraper/issues#issue/3 > That introduces another interesting question. The mirroring of flat files > has a nice side effect: you only get updates when a maintainer manually > uploads a new version. Forking would mean that updates give you the > bleeding-edge version, which might not be what you want. I'm not sure what > to do in this case. > That's true. And tagging won't be as reliable. And what happens when the script author forces a push? If an author wants his repo cloned instead of scraped, maybe he/she must agree in blood to keep the master branch stable, use tags, and never force. > > If I wrote a small script to make/update a BitBucket mirror of each of the > packages for us Mercurial users (using hg-git), would you be interested? If > not, I might just write/maintain it myself. :) > I don't use mercurial much so I couldn't help write it. Still, I'm happy to include in vim-scripts and give you full ownership and the commit bit. Would that work? - Scott -- You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
