On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mike Moore <blowm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want a confrontation, I was just trying to voice some concerns I > have. If everyone is in agreement that the way things have been done is the > best way they could have possibly been done, and that nothing should be > changed now that the project owners and the rules for making contributions > are fundamentally different, then by all means continue. > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ryan Riley > <ryan.ri...@panesofglass.org>wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Mike Moore <blowm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> You are speaking like someone responsible for both languages and the DLR. >>> >> >> And you are speaking like someone who has tried hard several times to >> contribute to IronRuby and failed because of a bloated project structure. >> I'm sure there are several people who would be willing to help you figure >> out what's wrong. Where's the repo with your contribution? >> > > I don't understand. Is this some sort of challenge? > No, that's just how I read your message. You seem to indicate that the current repo structure causes difficulty when you want to contribute. If you need help finding your way around, I'm happy to help, as I'm sure are many others. (Of course, you may want the help of others as I'm a bit rusty myself.) :) > I don't think changing the structure in forked repos would do anyone any > good, as it would make sharing contributions between repos difficult. > True, but if you were able to create a repo structure you think would allow more freedom to contribute, then I think everyone would move to that structure. Changing the structure is going to take work, and I think most people who have been contributing are fine with the current structure since they've been used to it for some time. Actually, several layers of the repo have already been removed, so it's better than it was six months ago. I think you are confused to where I am puzzled about resistance. It is not > about having rake tasks. I agree that they are easy enough to add and > maintain, and that whining about them would be quite ridiculous. That's not > my point, however. My point is that there would be more contributions if it > were not a single monolithic repository. I also think most of the historic > benefits of having a monolithic repo can be mitigated with submodules and an > automated build and integration server. > > Feel free to disagree. > I don't really disagree with you at all. I use that same strategy myself on my own projects. I just don't want to volunteer to restructure the entire project, especially if people are actively working on integration scenarios. Yes, the project was originally in both TFS and git, so it had to play nice with both. Other options are now open. Hence why I suggested forking it and showing a better structure. I dunno, it looks really, really similar to the IronRuby repo on GitHub to > me. Is this synched with the GitHub repo? Is this where all the "Project > Merlin" changes are coming from? > I believe the sync is one-way, IronRuby includes IronPython. I'm sure the similarity in structure comes from the internal TFS repos that were used and the fact that the teams were both working on the DLR together. Someone please correct me if this is wrong. Cheers, Ryan
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
