| 1 |
2012/4/4 Christoph Junghans <ottxor@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> 2012/4/4 Steven Lembark <lembark@×××××××.com>: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:15:41 +0100 |
| 4 |
>> Kacper Kowalik <xarthisius@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On 03/15/2012 11:03 AM, Oliver Borm wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> > Hi, |
| 8 |
>>> > |
| 9 |
>>> > what are with users that only have write access to the original overlay? |
| 10 |
>>> > Do they need a github account in order to further contribute to the sci |
| 11 |
>>> > overlay? |
| 12 |
>>> It's not mandatory so they don't need to, though I've strongly encourage |
| 13 |
>>> to do so. |
| 14 |
>>> > What will happen if they push their changes just to g.o.g ? |
| 15 |
>>> When a person with access to both repos does git pull --all, it pull |
| 16 |
>>> changes from both, and during push --all it will be naturally migrated |
| 17 |
>>> to github. Of course it also works the other way around. As far as my |
| 18 |
>>> short experience with that workflow goes it's almost indistinguishable |
| 19 |
>>> to what we had so far. Only pull/push time is slightly longer |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> It might be worth adding a "stable" branch to the |
| 22 |
>> repository. Goal there is that changes to into the |
| 23 |
>> trunk and ones found to work or that pass more tests |
| 24 |
>> can get selectively merged into the stable branch. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> Makes it easeir to catch minor bugs after a commit. |
| 27 |
> IMO, stable stuff should go in the default portage tree (gx86). I am |
| 28 |
> against having too many layers of "stable". |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Christoph |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I second that. For stable is the main tree. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Reinis |
Archives