| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 11:34:09AM +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
| 2 |
> If you'd like we'd prefer a GitHub pull request where you modify the |
| 3 |
> ebuild adding this patch, and revbump the ebuild to -r2. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Sure, I can do that. It should be relativiely straightforward since I |
| 6 |
already have the patch ready. Expect a pr either later tonight or |
| 7 |
tomorrow. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> We should only switch upstreams if there's some clear development done |
| 10 |
> in a fork - are you aware of any other forks existing, with active |
| 11 |
> development happening? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That makes sense, and in general, I agree with that. There are quite a |
| 14 |
few forks listed at https://github.com/muennich/physlock/network/members |
| 15 |
but most of them are either far behind upstream with no changes or are |
| 16 |
behind + a few commits of their own. Some of the commits were nothing |
| 17 |
more than code style changes, and some of them were from pull requests |
| 18 |
that were closed with some of them being closed without being accepted. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There was one fork [1] which looked like it had some activity earlier |
| 21 |
this year, but looking at the pull requests on the upstream repo [2] it |
| 22 |
looks like the work was actually done towards the end of 2019 and it was |
| 23 |
just a rebase and force push that was done this year. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[1] https://github.com/dexterlb/physlock |
| 26 |
[2] https://github.com/muennich/physlock/pull/79 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So, from what I can tell, it doesn't really seem like there's a lot of |
| 29 |
development going on anywhere. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- Oskari |
Archives