| 1 |
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:21:06AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > You keep saying this. What do you mean? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'll clarify! |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and |
| 11 |
> > nothing else. I don't see the problem. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it is |
| 14 |
> the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, then |
| 15 |
> github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are |
| 16 |
> enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at all. |
| 17 |
> (It works of course, but the repo history ends up looking horrible.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You can use git remotes on a github-based repository the same way you |
| 20 |
would on any git repository, and you can rebase branches before you merge |
| 21 |
them into master so you get only fast-forward merges. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So, I do not see how the history is going to look horrible or how merge |
| 24 |
commits are "enforced for all external contributions". |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
William |
Archives