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=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=u3irXPRo3W/s4ug12x/rQkZByBvLSM5ThDUqefKxYco=;
	b=HDR3jPntFlHVsbN7/+n1IMvi0iIdy+sl2o1zNvGhcQDOHcTJ1ujHxK1kM+RYd9owXP
	PHVkbF1pojejuMJf3ze9bq1VgJNF9G4feg/CS9cq4bp1RaoGcQfXDmnAKXl2Z0razKxe
	YStKL59yYXxQQ2oZThCQvN61qskjJMiOtJplSgo8a97s103rI4mP0Sog/ueWwTEK9ptD
	8hWxR2m5X341vsbgMlnbl+80WQEthu7fkZgeY+L6lnHtIqS2OO5R/88z/hzXjmpbKYx+
	F5nuvP+y3XaY1Mn/BYzGJofzq8nCX99H+//X0R0vKHkOklSDkFPOSsD7riJTk3eXhCEo
	nFBw==
X-Received:	by 10.112.126.101 with SMTP id mx5mr16210459lbb.35.1440331945412;
	Sun, 23 Aug 2015 05:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:12:20 +0200
From:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Antifork (use trunk)
Message-Id:	<20150823141220.3ea0acad21bc6be29ee16fd2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<55D9A5AE.9090604@jump-ing.de>
References:	<55D8D8B8 DOT 7050907 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<20150822230549 DOT 3750 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<55D9A5AE DOT 9090604 AT jump-ing DOT de>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Why not just use the trunk and put releases in forks?

The trunk will be the way forward and the forks are used to pull off parts for releases.

Regards Nicklas Karlsson




On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:51:26 +0200
"Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> 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 -