On May 13, 2013 7:30 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > Once again, Git != GitHub. > So we should either support it or not support it. Having a mirror in Github and not supporting it reflects badly on the project.
Define 'support'. How much support does a reasonable person expect from a 'mirror'? > > > We should not make any changes to our repo to accommodate GitHub. > Then we shouldn't support it and remove it. Is that what you want? > I would leave it as it is and better educate folks about these mirrors in our documentation and website. > > Other than that we should not spend more time on this 'issue'. > This is an issue because it's seen by the wider community. I agree it's mostly irrelevant to active committers but it is an issue for someone who does a pull request and that request is ignored for several months. It an issue because github says no changes have happened in the project for 3 months (and people tweet about it) when the actual fact is that changes happen every other day. > Nothing you mention cannot be solved by some settings changes on GitHub and proper education/documentation of our process. It is a simple setting in GitHub to show a particular branch by default. But you need admin access for that, i.e. we will have to ask Infra to do this for us. For example, look at this repo: https://github.com/apacheflex/whiteboard_fthomas_developerToolSuite This shows the 'develop' branch by default. You can go into the 'Graphs' tab to see the activity in the 'develop' branch. GitHub apparently shows the graph only for the default branch. Also, every GitHub project has a description field where we can say in bold letters that we do not accept 'Pull requests' because it is a read-only mirorr. Again, Infra can make this change for us. For example, this repo: https://github.com/bigosmallm/MakeApacheFlexForFlashBuilder has info about the fact that active development is happening elsewhere. Thanks, Om
