| 1 |
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Ultrabug <ultrabug@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> It also may be interesting to use the github workflow with |
| 3 |
> proxy-maintainers (which might also make the proxy-maintainers project |
| 4 |
> even more visible) ? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Tend to agree, although a big liability will be the fact that we're |
| 8 |
still not on git ourselves. So, to be useful that github tree would |
| 9 |
to get regular cvs updates incorporated, and then any content would |
| 10 |
need to be manually moved over. The trees would be constantly |
| 11 |
slightly out of sync - what happens if somebody commits a fix without |
| 12 |
a revbump to git and then the cvs tree refreshes git not showing the |
| 13 |
change, and so on? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I guess for proxy-maintained packages we could just consider the |
| 16 |
git-tree "official" and do all forward work there without publishing |
| 17 |
cvs changes automatically. Then cvs updates are just manual copies |
| 18 |
when things are good in the git tree. However, the second somebody |
| 19 |
comes along with some library package move or other tree-wide change |
| 20 |
they're going to make things out of sync unless they know to go update |
| 21 |
git. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Seems like overlays are the best candidate for a place to start since |
| 24 |
they largely use git already. Maybe this is just one more reason to |
| 25 |
get the main tree onto git as well... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives