On 05/01/11 14:46, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 30.04.2011 11:48, schrieb Matthew Brush:
I think the more important part is, are the core developers going to accept pull/merge requests on github/gitorious, apply commits/patches from there, etc.? If it's only going to be another read-only git mirror, it's kind of pointless. I don't mean to say that it's a bad idea to have the "official Geany source" available on various projects sites to fork/hack on and stuff, just that it doesn't address the problem being discussed at all.
I agree it's not as useful, but I disagree that it'd be pointless. We can still benefit from the "social coding" aspects of github, including but not limited to an overview over the forks, pull requests between forks. I would greatly love to see that, as I'm subscribed to a number forks by now :)
Yeah, pointless was a poor choice of word. What I meant was that it would still require the same workflow to get changes into Geany, the history would still be broken, none of the network/other graphs would really work properly (I think) for the Geany repository, etc.
IMO, the better approach would be to move the main source tree/development to GitHub.com and then the core devs who prefer Subversion could continue to use it on the GitHub.com repository[1][2]. This would at least solve a few more of the issues, and wouldn't require much upfront effort or disruption of the core devs' workflow.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
[1] https://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support [2] https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support