X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h=
	message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh=
	bM50mpVtzjELhGWqVeg7HezIgjOqXtzFHqzCw1x3VX8=; b=jInNERqlyLu+GC4x
	wZNBD8pPe8CwYBXMRShFg/0qXJfvNQZj2Zm04byjtdEM/7dJ06Nblfw9qnV/noaY
	mMMHETN7D9fAzieU1z5rqky/xmu3We+xgA+UAvo2/8OZeJwzwujz0e2kHasDr6rr
	l+TtvNUPzJSY5pxICin/dPzcjHA=
Message-ID:	<55D9A5AE.9090604@jump-ing.de>
Date:	Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:51:26 +0200
From:	"Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Antifork
References:	<55D8D8B8 DOT 7050907 AT jump-ing DOT de> <20150822230549 DOT 3750 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
In-Reply-To:	<20150822230549.3750.qmail@stuge.se>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

Am 23.08.2015 um 01:05 schrieb Peter Stuge:
> Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> many talented people happily hack away on the project
> ...
>> none of them does so in the official repo
> 
> Would it help if I host git repos and hand out commit access to
> interested people?

I feared this. People see a tool to deal better with forks and feel encouraged to create even more forks.

Forks are the wrong way. As one can easily observe in the public repo, they almost halted official development. Ask Eagle or KiCAD users; they consider gEDA to be mostly dead, because there's no visible development and newer developments also don't get into Linux distributions.

Another reason against forks is lack of collaboration, which I'll try to explain in a minute to Igor2.


> I think the branch ignore function should use a combination of
> one remote URL (NB! git: vs. http: vs. https:) and one branch
> name, rather than a commit hash, because the commit could be in
> many branches and only one of them should be ignored.

That's how it actually behaves: it doesn't ignore single commits, but only branches, if the last commit on a branch matches the ignored commit hash. 

It's the hash, because if a branch in a fork receives additional commits, the branch name is still the same; filtering by branch name whould ignore these new commits. Filtering by hash makes these updated branches appear again, so they get noticed.

Filtering single commits whould be nice, but requires rebasing, making it pretty complicated.


Markus

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/

- Raw text -