Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: As Peff noticed, the typo in the title is at exactly the right place as if designed to confuse all readers. I had to read the body twice before I realized s/hub/lab/ is needed. > I maintain this mirror, but hopefully we can make it semi-official. It As Peff hinted, all the current list entries are repositories I push into directly, and obviously I do not want to increase the number of such direct non-mirrors (I managed to drop sourceforge some time ago and I was happy). But the list is described with a weasel-out phrase "My public ... repositories are (mirrored) at:", hinting that some of the entries can be mere mirrors. To most end-users, as long as the contents are genuine and lag is minimum, it makes no difference if it is a mirror or a directly pushed non-mirror, I would think. So it is OK to add one, as long as it benefits the community. I would consider adding this repository to the list only if it is hosted on GitLab's infrastructure with commitment from GitLab to back it officially, as opposed to a mirror being maintained by a random GitLab user running a cronjob. What I expect is that the former would get transfer quota boost if/when the mirror gets popular enough while the latter would probably not, and I would like to make sure we advertise to our users a service that they can rely on. > has the same refs as the GitHub one except for the GitHub "pull" refs: > > $ diff -u \ > <(git ls-remote https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git.git/) \ > <(git ls-remote https://github.com/git/git/|grep -v refs/pull) > $ > > Although I had to delete the stale "pu" manually just now. > > As an aside there are also https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/git and > https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git which mostly mirror but also carry some > GitLab Employee topic branches. These I suspect falls into "are we advertising a service of a company, or are we offering service to the community?" bin. > Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > MaintNotes | 1 + > cook | 5 +++-- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/MaintNotes b/MaintNotes > index 0dc03080de..bb3064e9ac 100644 > --- a/MaintNotes > +++ b/MaintNotes > @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at: > https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git > git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/ > https://github.com/git/git/ > + https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/ > > This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also > individual topics broken out: > diff --git a/cook b/cook > index 03ac0cfbe4..2258390114 100755 > --- a/cook > +++ b/cook > @@ -295,8 +295,8 @@ the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them. > > > Copies of the source code to Git live in many repositories, and the > -following is a list of the ones I push into. Some repositories have > -only a subset of branches. > +following is a list of the ones I push into or their mirrors. Some > +repositories have only a subset of branches. This harmonises the description with the phrase used in MaintNotes, and because "What's cooking" is issued much more often than the "A note from the maintainer", it matters more to have the new entry here (having said that, the text here is only used when starting "What's cooking" from scratch, and because we have already issued many many issues of "What's cooking" report so far, it makes no difference to edit the text above and list below with this patch). > With maint, master, next, seen, todo: > > @@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ With maint, master, next, seen, todo: > git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/ > https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git/ > https://github.com/git/git/ > + https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/ > > With all the integration branches and topics broken out:
