I'm in favor of Prashant's approach. More data points: There are only 15 people who've opened pull requests. Most of them are people who already work on the project and are aware of this change. I'm not sure how many people used the command-line vs used GitHub's UI. This leaves a very small minority of people not part of the community and will be temporarily inconvenienced. Let's clean it up so a fresh clone will be super fast for them.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Kaushal M <kshlms...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Humble Devassy Chirammal > <humble.deva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Amye Scavarda <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> All in favor of the 'everyone working on this should clone again' > >> approach. > > > > Both approaches require cloning again, so which on are we voting for? > > 1. Prashanth's approach > - modify existing repo > - users re clone > - push force to their forks on github > > 2. Misc's approach > - create a new minified repo > - users clone/fork the new repo > > I don't mind either. > > > > > +2 on the same thought. :) > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
