On 17 November 2012 19:06, Ken Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Vadim, > > I agree 100% - you do not want to scare away contributors with too > many requirements.
Looks like we have reached the consensus ;-) > It may turn out that some occasional contributors may end up passing > code to the core developers to check in anyways. There are multiple options to submit patches (direct e-mail to one of us, post to the list, GitHub). All they are valid, but I'd suggest to encourage people to use GitHub. The added value is a publicly archived track in form of ticked in the Issues, laying closer to the source code than the list archives. This also helps to display "what needs to be done" for potential contributors aiming to bash some bugs, review patches. Finally, it helps to keep things unforgotten. IMO, GitHub is simply far more convenient. > Luckily, git-flow is a client-side tool, so it's definitely not a hard > requirement. > > Though, IMHO, it's probably easier to mess up a repository doing > things by hand at a low git level (especially for beginners) rather > than have git-flow do all the branching/merging/tagging work > automagically for you... ...but the good news is, most problems, > should they arise, are not too hard to fix at the git level. I think that's simply inscribed in the nature of Git. Many ways to shoot yourself in the foot. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ soci-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
