From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Git mirrors Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 02:58:19 -0400 Message-ID: <29626.1337669899@alphaville> References: <86obpgokml.fsf@mercure.progiciels-bpi.ca> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38320) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWj35-0000Xd-Ir for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 02:58:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWj33-0000c6-FB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 02:58:27 -0400 Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.61]:31104) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWj33-0000bt-AB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 02:58:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message from =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FQ=3FFran=3DC3=3DA7ois?= =?us-ascii?Q?=5FPinard=3F=3D?= of "Tue\, 22 May 2012 01\:22\:26 EDT." <86obpgokml.fsf@mercure.progiciels-bpi.ca> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FQ=3FFran=3DC3=3DA7ois=5FPinard=3F=3D?= Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Fran=C3=A7ois Pinard wrote: > Hi, Org people. >=20 > GitHub has a few niceties, like easy forking, pull requests and such. I > notice https://github.com/jwiegley/org-mode in particular, which does > not seem to be itself a fork of another GitHub repository, so I presume > it forked directly from the official Git site for Org mode, which itself > does not provide the same collaboration facilities as GitHub. >=20 > The GitHub home page for John Wiegly says the org-mode project was > updated two weeks ago, so I suspect it lags on the official Git site. A > message on the mailing list speaks of this repository as the home for > Org-X, so I also suspect this fork is not genuine, and not a way to get > on GitHub the real, pure, Org mode. >=20 It does not make any difference from where you get it. You can mirror the org git repo from orgmode.org on github if you want: nothing is stopping you. Then use the github collaboration tools. > In the Org project, how commits are usually transmitted? I would not > think maintainers are pulling our various repositories in theirs to then > consider cherry picking, and it would require that we all set up Git > servers. We could use GitHub as a way to avoid servers, but it feel > strange using GitHub to communicate with Org maintainers while they do > not themselves choose to keep an "official" mirror of Org on GitHub. >=20 That's up to each maintainer: they can apply patches sent as email, or they can cherry-pick commits from a remote branch if they want. There is nothing strange about using github to communicate with the maintainers: set up your clone, create a branch with your modification and let the maintainers know about it. That's how many linux maintainers did things while kernel.org was down last year. All that changed for Linus was that he pulled from a different repo. OTOH, some maintainers would prefer emailed patches instead; some wouldn't care one way or the other. If they don't want to touch your repo, you can't make them, so the best thing to do is ask which is their preferred method. Or do as Bernt Hansen was doing: submit a patch in email and also point to a branch that contains that patch (and that patch alone) on top of a clone of the official git repo. This last method has the advantage that it tells the maintainer the exact state of the tree when the patch was applied, which allows problematic merges to be resolved more easily (see Linus's comments in https://plus.google.com/111049168280159033135/posts/Xmycxn7VwHV for some details - but that's useful mostly for maintainers, not for patch contributors; otoh, it's always nice to know more than the absolute minimum necessary.) > Commits are going to be sent as email apply-able patches? Maybe this is > all documented somewhere already, and I just did not read enough? >=20 ``Documented'' is probably too strong a word, but once you've been on the ML for a while, you start discerning the customs of the people living there: emailed patches is indeed the standard way (not least because patchwork captures them, so they don't get lost in some old email thread). Nick Disclaimer: I'm not a maintainer, so if I've got things wrong, I hope one of them will correct me.