On 8/1/07, Christopher Blizzard <blizzard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:53 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:42 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > > > > > Collaboration between more than 1 or 2 people on a patch set to > > > > propose > > > > upstream. > > > > > > Yeah, this is what I've been pushing for forever. "Private Builds". > > > The use case is something like project utopia. Where you have to make a > > > pile of builds together in order to make some change and you want to > > > work with and collaborate with other people outside of the mainstream of > > > development. Doing so should be the click of one button. Once again, > > > it's about attracting developers, not really about having only one way > > > of doing things. And developers like to work with other people and have > > > a convenient place to do so. > > > > > > > OR to rephrase what you've just said: > > > > it's about maintaining forks and encouraging forking. > > > > If we setup a new repo at hosted, everytime someone wants to play with > > something we'll have an infinite set of repos and we'll have a lot of > > languishing and abandoned branches that never get cleaned up. > > > > Making a repo at fedorapeople.org is trivial and available and it > > doesn't require any intervention by people in the infrastructure group. > > Just drop your repo there and go! > > It's really not about forking. It's about allowing for easy > experimentation which encourages developers to work with Fedora. > Everyone has used repos forever. But repos aren't connected to any > particular development branch. (i.e. here's a repo, but where's the > development happening? Who is involved? Is it still active?) Also it > would seem that keeping the knowledge of changes involved in a > particular development effort is important. > > There are a lot of languishing and abandoned repos that exist out there, > too. They just take up a lot more space because they include source + > binaries, not just a pointed to a starting point + a set of patches. :P > Before this conversation goes on any further.. could we get both people's definition of a fork? My take on it is that you are both using a word with completely different ideas of what it is. One definition of a fork would be that every distributed git collection is a fork of the 'master' version Linus uses. Another is that a fork would be if I called my git collection Dominatux and would be working on that as the bound and gagged penguin kernel. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
