I'm starting this thread to discuss what git repository should be designated as primary and which repositories should be designated as secondary. For years, git.kernel.org has been the primary repo, updated at least with every full and pre- release. git.zytor.com has been the secondary and development repo. Additionally, I've maintained my repos at github.com and git.zytor.com as unofficial repos with the master branch on each following the official repos which I expect to stay this way. -- -Gene
> I'm starting this thread to discuss what git repository should be > designated as primary and which repositories should be designated as > secondary. > > For years, git.kernel.org has been the primary repo, updated at least > with every full and pre- release. git.zytor.com has been the > secondary and development repo. > > Additionally, I've maintained my repos at github.com and git.zytor.com > as unofficial repos with the master branch on each following the > official repos which I expect to stay this way. > > -- > -GeneI don't know about primary / secondary / unofficial, but I would like to mention some points for consideration. 1_ repo.or.cz currently uses a web interface similar to the gitweb-caching interface that was used in git.zytor.com until 2014Oct. This might not be very important for developers, but it might be relevant for others (myself included). 2_ repo.or.cz is already being used by NASM, and by some contributors. 3_ github.com has the possibility of "wiki" and "issues". This sounds as a potential advantage, but it might be a burden. There are not enough resources (time, developers, contributors...) to maintain yet another contact channel. Moreover, having multiple channels for the same objective (bugs, wiki, tracking patches, optionally "linking" between them...) is probably not such a good idea. 4_ The current bugzilla for Syslinux is not very well maintained. Should a different method / site be considered _instead_ of it? Should an _additional_ method / site be considered as optional alternative? 5_ github.com is popular. Would having a github repo attract additional valuable developers (with the adequate skills)? Or would it result in more maintenance than it would be worth? 6_ I would tend to think that the current 2 official repositories should be kept (in addition to whatever results from this discussion and efforts), not replaced. 7_ There are other prospects in existence. 8_ For any of the potential prospects, actions should be taken so "The Syslinux Project" could acquire official ownership / privileges / permissions. Regards, Ady.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:44:11PM +0300, Ady via Syslinux wrote:> > > I'm starting this thread to discuss what git repository should be > > designated as primary and which repositories should be designated as > > secondary. > > > > For years, git.kernel.org has been the primary repo, updated at least > > with every full and pre- release. git.zytor.com has been the > > secondary and development repo. > > > > Additionally, I've maintained my repos at github.com and git.zytor.com > > as unofficial repos with the master branch on each following the > > official repos which I expect to stay this way. > > > > -- > > -Gene > > I don't know about primary / secondary / unofficial, but I would like > to mention some points for consideration. > > 1_ repo.or.cz currently uses a web interface similar to the > gitweb-caching interface that was used in git.zytor.com until 2014Oct. > This might not be very important for developers, but it might be > relevant for others (myself included). > > 2_ repo.or.cz is already being used by NASM, and by some contributors. > > 3_ github.com has the possibility of "wiki" and "issues". This sounds > as a potential advantage, but it might be a burden. There are not > enough resources (time, developers, contributors...) to maintain yet > another contact channel. Moreover, having multiple channels for the > same objective (bugs, wiki, tracking patches, optionally "linking" > between them...) is probably not such a good idea. > > 4_ The current bugzilla for Syslinux is not very well maintained. > Should a different method / site be considered _instead_ of it? Should > an _additional_ method / site be considered as optional alternative? > > 5_ github.com is popular. Would having a github repo attract additional > valuable developers (with the adequate skills)? Or would it result in > more maintenance than it would be worth?Popular should not be a reason to choose.> 6_ I would tend to think that the current 2 official repositories > should be kept (in addition to whatever results from this discussion > and efforts), not replaced. > > 7_ There are other prospects in existence. > > 8_ For any of the potential prospects, actions should be taken so "The > Syslinux Project" could acquire official ownership / privileges / > permissions. > > Regards, > Ady.Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven