On 05/08/10 22:11, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > what problems do you see w/ licensing ? > > IMHO, each branch simply has to follow the upstream's license.
i have yet to see easy cases with licensing. i haven't thought about it in detail yet, tough, to be honest. > simply normalize: don't use letters but numbers. i don't believe in simple normalization before i have seen it. > b) it's not really a release but just a development snapshot - > that doesnt belong into the main oss-qm repository why doesn't it belong in there? > I've chosen that scheme to make the borders more clear (also for > automatic filtering, etc). In my concept, the vendor is the major > point of distinction, package comes at second, ... i guess we agree to disagree then. i don't think the current scheme promotes cooperation well. > Well, the term vendor here is defined as a party which provides > packages in certain variants. "UPSTREAM" is a kind of meta vendor, > describing the upstreams. "Vendor" is IMHO more generic, since there > may be vendors who aren't actually a real distro. For example, I > myself don't publish a complete distro, but a foundation for clean > building especially for special embedded devices or appliances. yes, that's why i proposed "downstream" as a replacement. you don't consider yourself downstream? > Yes, that's still an open topic. I've chosen to use one big repo > for easier maintenance, but I'm aware of the problem that the > repo might become very fat some day. my point is not about size, only about "users". > I see two options: > > a) split it off into several ones, eg. on per-package basis > and create a system for (semi-)automatic mass-repo maintenance > (not completely trivial when using free git hosters as mirrors) are you aware that splitting it up will reduce the savings in space? say if they all had byte-identical GPLv3 COPYING files that would be one blob atm and N blobs in split mode. > b) add an selective filtering system. AFIAK current stable git > doesnt provide that yet - I've added an little patch for that: > > http://repo.or.cz/w/oss-qm-packages.git/shortlog/refs/heads/METUX.git.master while i'm not sure about this in detail yet, could it be this loop misses to filter the very first entry? + while (walk && (walk->next)) + { + if (_filter_remote_ref(transport, walk->next)) + walk->next = walk->next->next; + else + walk = walk->next; + } + best, sebastian
