| 1 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've been very happy with using svn+trac overlays to bridge this gap. |
| 3 |
> They provide a sandbox for contributions to be shared and evaluated. |
| 4 |
> They provide a place where I've been able to give commit access to |
| 5 |
> non-devs, so that they can learn the ropes w/out threatening the |
| 6 |
> Portage tree proper. They provide a place where people who just want |
| 7 |
> to write docs for a single package can contribute. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Overlays create a sense of participation that's lacking with Bugzilla |
| 10 |
> patch submissions. Backed up with regular communication (I recommend |
| 11 |
> not recruiting anyone who won't spend time in the IRC channels, but |
| 12 |
> that's a personal preference), they help us get things done quicker. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The downside with overlays at the moment is that they're scattered |
| 15 |
> around the net, and if you don't know where to look they can be very |
| 16 |
> hard to find. I've been talking with infra about providing |
| 17 |
> overlays.g.o as a central hosting service for herd and individual |
| 18 |
> developer overlays. Infra have been very supportive of the idea. I |
| 19 |
> just need to free up some time to get the service launched. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we |
| 22 |
were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy merging. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Donnie |
Archives