Mr. Meitar Moscovitz wrote:
As someone just beginning to get familiar with the Laconica sources
(I've been sending in small patches to fix bugs to get myself
oriented), I just wanted to clarify a few things about how the
repository reorganization might affect things. (Also, first post to
this list. :)
I'll just take this opportunity to say thanks for the many great
bugfixes you've posted over the last week or so. They've been really
helpful!
Our main repository is going to be on Gitorious:
http://gitorious.org/projects/laconica/repos/mainline
This is cool, but I'm a touch confused because I'm familiar with git,
but not with Gitorious.org.
I'm just getting familiar with both, so bear with me.
The Gitorious page says that the Laconica repository there is a clone
from the main one at
http://laconi.ca/software/laconica.git
That's where my local git repo is currently pulling from (it's my
"origin"). With this new reorganization to Gitorious, should I now
start pulling from the repository on Gitorious.org instead?
Yes. I'm going to try to keep the laconi.ca/software/laconica.git repo
as an up-to-date mirror, but you should now consider the gitorious.org
one authoritative. I've updated the description there and the Source
page on Trac.
It'd be great if other people who want to contribute use
gitorious.org, too. You can push your changes there and make a merge
request; it's very handy for tracking what needs to be done.
So, can I take this to mean that sending you a merge request on
Gitorious.org is your preferred method of receiving patches? :)
As of right now, yes.
I've been uploading them to Laconica's Trac because that's where I go
to report the bugs I find, so I'm in the habit of returning there to
provide patches for said bugs. I also see folks sending patches in via
the mailing list here, and so now with this third option I'm just
wanting to know how to best be a helpful contributor as opposed to a
distraction. :)
Thanks! First, I'm excited to have /any/ contributions from hackers,
designers, and writers of all stripes. I'm willing to meet people
halfway to get their work into the project.
That said, this would be my ladder of preferences for getting
contributions, in descending order of preference:
1. A merge request on Gitorious. Really convenient for me; other
committers can also handle it. *Great.*
2. A patch in an external (non-gitorious) clone of the Laconica tree,
and an email to [email protected] asking for a merge. *Good.*
3. A Git patch attached to a Trac ticket. I find navigating the Trac
ticket system kind of painful. *OK.*
4. A Git patch emailed to me or to someone on the "team" -- CYI
employees or people known to be committers. These can get lost in
the shuffle sometimes. *OK.*
5. A patch sent to this list in email. This is more of a discussion
list than a patch list; I'd rather cut down on the visual noise.
*Bad.*
6. A patch or set of instructions ("Change line 33 in file
lib/util.php to...") in a blog post. These are hard to find and
harder to integrate. *Bad.*
7. darcs patches. I've got a few of these left to integrate; I'd
really rather not receive new ones. *Bad.*
8. A contribution to a forked tree without sending an email merge
request. That's just rude. *Very bad*.
9. Modified version on the Web without providing source. Contrary to
the rules of the AGPL. *Unacceptable*.
Again, it's great to get contributions of all kinds, and thanks to
everyone who's been sending in code.
-Evan
_______________________________________________
Laconica-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
