David Greene <dag@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> How does the git community want the patch presented? Right now it's one
> monolithic thing. I understand that isn't ideal but I don't think
> incorporating the entire GitHub master history is necessarily the best
> idea either.
It depends on the longer term vision of how the result of this submission
will evolve and more importantly, where you fit in the piture.
One possible answer you could give us might go like this:
The longer term vision is for "git subtree" to become, and be
developed further as, an integral part of the core git suite.
I have been an active contributor to the "git subtree" project for
quite some time, and am very familiar with the code. Avery has been
too busy to properly take care of the maintenance of "git subtree",
and expected to be so for the foreseeable future. I will address any
issue raised during the initial review and will be taking over its
maintenance and further development.
My plan is to put this first to contrib/ area, keep it there for a few
release cycles while ironing out remaining kinks in the code, and
eventually make it one of the "git" subcommands. Avery's external tree
will cease to exist as future development will happen in-tree in the
git repository.
Your answer might differ, of course, but the point is that we would need
to weigh pros and cons between inclusion of it in the git repository and
keeping it in Avery's repository and have him and his contributors
maintain, enhance and distribute it from there, and it largely depends on
the nature of the submission. Is it a "throw it over the wall" dump of a
large code of unknown quality that we need to clean up first without
knowing the vision of how "git subtree" should evolve by original author
and/or people who have been actively developing it?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html