[Geany-devel] geany on github; why not?

Matthew Brush mbrush at xxxxx
Fri Aug 19 23:40:21 UTC 2011

On 08/19/2011 03:28 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:08:16 -0700
> Matthew Brush<mbrush at codebrainz.ca>  wrote:
>> On 08/19/2011 02:11 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
>>> view onto git. There are also a couple of services offering hg or bzr
>> Except most of the developers don't already know and use Mercurial or
>> Bazaar as much Git (I think).
> The basic feeling is the same in terms of commit, push and pull. They
> are all dvcs. ;)

Ok for the command line usage, but the only good Mercurial site I've 
seen is bitbucket.  For Bazaar, it seems to only be Launchpad, which 
actually won't even load on my computer, and the layout feels really 
complicated, from what I can tell by looking as it crashes my browser.

>>> which are pretty similar to git. So pretty much I'm looking for a
>>> specification sheet with possible matches for solution. I suggest to
>>> collect this inside the wiki.

DRY principles lead me to suggest reading:

Which covers much of the same ground, excluding discussions of project 

> I don't want to impolite so I'm just asking for two things to
> everybody: 1.) Who likes to take over responsibility? (yepp, I really
> asking for a project manager here) 2.) Can you please careful clean the
> facts and put them together as I suggested (was demanding ;) ) in one
> of my previous postings. At the end, this needs to be done anyway (and
> you are right. Making the long discussions on mailing list short it
> really was a huge pro for some git based solution and the next open
> question would be were to host) - but I really like to have a clean
> documentation of facts ;)

1) Who *can* take over responsibility?  I already have a fork of Geany 
on GitHub which I mostly keep up to date.  Do we want me to be the 
manager and administrator of the "official" repository?  I can, but I 
think it would be best done by a core developer.

2) I guess it could be outlined in the Wiki or something, though it 
seems redundant since it has already been done in the mailing list (for 
example [1]).

> P.S. And yes, I still don't see any good reasons for a change as the
> issues we currently are experiencing, e.g. low an resources for code
> review will not be solved by any VCS IMHO. I might be wrong, but these
> are my thoughts.
> It just doesn't matter how patches are coming in, we need people
> reviewing them and applying them to main tree. We need people taking
> care on special parts of Geany as the libsm stuff and other open points
> and we need less novelistic discussion on mailing list but good usage
> of wiki. But these are just my 2ct.

With the current way we do things, no one even *can* take care of 
special parts because only 2 or 3 people have commit access and it's a 
PITA to contribute by squashing all your commits into a patch and 
bumping the ML till one of those 2 or 3 people have time to act on it. 
With a more open/social-type project site, you'll get people making 
forks to implement a feature, then they'll make a pull request, which 
others will see and then they will try this feature and test it, and so 
on.  All of this can happen without having to wait for one of the 2 or 3 
committers to review and apply a patch.

[1] http://lists.uvena.de/geany-devel/2011-April/004559.html

Matthew Brush

More information about the Devel mailing list