On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 09:43:56AM +1300, [email protected] wrote: > … however, when I looked at the main repo, it didn't appear to have > had many updates of late and so I emaled Christina directly when > initially approaching Greg.
Fair enough. And maintainers get busy (Christina certainly has a lot on her plate). It's possible that there just isn't enough maintainer time to keep a SWC-standard shell-extras going (I'm not sure either way). But this is also orthogonal to the changes you're proposing. If you like what you have, you can keep rolling forward with your version of the lesson regardless of what happens upstream. > As to trying to make the underlying changes within the existing > shell-extras repo, I can't say that I can see how I'd fork a repo of > "old templated" existing content that would then follow the use > patterns with the new template, and associated lesson repos, not > least because the instructions for creating lessons with the new > template make specific mention of the fact that the methodology > chosen was one that had to be taken because the "old way" didn't > allow for the desired direction that the new "two-repo", "content + > template" approach took. It's a big change, so it's a bit messy to read the final diff, but [1] is where this transition happened for git-novice. > If, of course, it's easier for me to simply start a new lesson > template PR that only has the lesson style as an upstream repo, > whilst the shell-extras maintainers decide how to port their > existing content, at which point I could easily meld their decisions > into my PRs, then I'll happily do that. This works too. The trade off is that while starting from scratch saves some time and effort, you also lose any previously-accumulated mass (shell-extras has an existing body of watchers, and presumably users, some name recognition, etc.). You get to decide whether tapping into that community is worth the time it takes to get the train moving again. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://github.com/swcarpentry/git-novice/pull/308 -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/discuss
