Am 14.11.24 um 08:19 schrieb Paul Mackerras: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 08:41:42AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> Hi Hannes, >> >> I would like to offer this thread as Exhibit A in support for the case I >> started making at [GitMerge '24](https://git-merge.com/) to convince you >> to consider maintaining gitk in addition to Git GUI. >> >> Having one maintainer of Git GUI and gitk would make for a quite natural >> fit, I would think, as both are written in Tcl/Tk, neither is used by the >> core Git contributors because they are GUI programs, both lower the bar >> for new Git users because they are GUI programs, and either would be >> subject for eviction from git/git unless maintained by an active >> volunteer. >> >> From what I see, Git GUI is in real good hands since you took over, I see >> reports and patches picked up quickly and the style of your replies is >> refreshingly constructive and friendly. >> >> This morning, I woke up to find a new PR in microsoft/git >> (https://github.com/microsoft/git/issues/704) that cherry-picks the patch >> that was offered in this here mail list thread. That patch is almost four >> years old, i.e. just about ready to enter pre-school and to learn how to >> read and write. Yet apart from Beat's confirmation that it fixes a real >> bug, this here patch has been treated with silence. >> >> Unfortunately, the original GitGitGadget PR had to be locked down and >> therefore Tobias would not be able to send another iteration even if he >> wanted to (which I doubt, given the experience on this mailing list). >> >> Therefore I see the need not only to revive this thread, but also to look >> for an active gitk maintainer. >> >> May I ask you, now in public, whether you would be potentially open to >> maintain gitk in addition to Git GUI? If so, I would then start a proper >> new thread to nominate you officially. > > If Hannes is willing to take this on, I would support that fully and I > would also be happy to assist. I know I was extremely slack about > gitk patches for a long while, but I think I have a little more free > time now, having retired. > > There is another issue which will need to be sorted out, which is > whether to persist with a separate tree that gets merged into the git > repository, or just edit the copy of gitk in the git repository. > There have been tree-wide patches applied to the git tree which > affected gitk, meaning that my gitk repository is now out of sync. > I recently (as in several weeks ago) sent Junio Hamano an email asking > this question, and asking for his opinion on the best way to proceed > with gitk patches, but got no reply. [For some reason, Dscho's original message didn't make it to my mailbox.] I have given the idea to take maintainership of Gitk ample consideration, and I would accept the task. Paul, let me know how to proceed. Regarding whether to have a separate tree or not, I would prefer a separate tree at this time, but only for the reason that it is known ground for me, and not that it has some (technical) advantage. -- Hannes
