As the majority seem to favour Prashanth's approach, I vote for it as well. Just to make it clearer for all users, please add a **highlighted** note in the README that informs any visitor to the github page of the change. On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Raghavendra Talur <rtalur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Aravinda <avishwan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> +1 for Prashanth's approach. > > > +1 >> >> regards >> Aravinda >> >> On 05/18/2016 03:55 PM, Kaushal M wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Humble Devassy Chirammal >> <humble.devassy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Amye Scavarda <amye@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> All in favor of the 'everyone working on this should clone again' >> approach. >> >> Both approaches require cloning again, so which on are we voting for? >> >> 1. Prashanth's approach >> - modify existing repo >> - users re clone >> - push force to their forks on github >> >> 2. Misc's approach >> - create a new minified repo >> - users clone/fork the new repo >> >> I don't mind either. >> >> +2 on the same thought. :) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
