On 8 November 2012 17:11, Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de> wrote:

Am 08.11.2012 03:36, schrieb Lex Trotman:

Hi All,

So our conclusion is that some seem to think it would be a good idea, but no-one has come forward and said "Ok, I will fork it on Github and lead the development of the simplifyable version, anyone wanting to help contact me".

My impression from the discussion was different. As I understand we absolutely want to avoid a fork if possible

Hi Thomas,

Ahhh, Github badly misuses the term fork. A Github fork is just another git clone, just like you have on your machine, but the Github one is public.

Why they chose to use a term like "fork" that has significant negative meanings I don't know.

Using a separate clone like this is the best workflow for big changes since it is based on, but separate from, the main repository and can have its own team separate from the main Geany one. It also has advantages like no accidental commits to the wrong branch in the main repo, anyone can create it and experiment etc. The main geany repository is usually kept as upstream so it can continually be merged to the clone and the result "painlessly" merged back into the main repository later.

and have the simple mode in our main repository if the required changes are not too invasive. But we cannot determine how invasive they are unless we get more information about what should constitute this "simple mode".

And I agree with both you and Matthew that it needs more definition, so whoever wants to do it, talk to Clem on IRC about what is needed/not needed as the case may be. But if nobody is interested then we shouldn't not reply to Mint, thats just rude, we should say no, or those that are interested, progress it.

Cheers

Lex

Best regards.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel