On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Mike McGrath wrote: > > I was under the impression that gitweb-caching was a massive step away > > from gitweb proper. Can anyone correct me on that? > > It is, but John H. sent a patch series to the git list to try and get > his code into git proper, which would be the best of both worlds. > It's still being discussed, so if infra wants to use a gitweb-caching > package in the interim that seems reasonable. > > I'm not so sure it's worth getting such a package into Fedora, as > we'll push a git with a caching gitweb fairly quickly once it's > included upstream. To me, the effort is best spent getting it > accepted upstream rather than creating a forked package that will > (hopefully) be made irrelevant fairly soon. > I agree, I was under the impression that upstream wasn't interested in the new patches. Probably because I wasn't paying attention and assumed it :) -Mike _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
