On 3 November 2014 17:51, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin Lyda wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Armin K. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Given that I'm the only contributor at the moment, with Chris jumping in >>> to help on some occassions, I find it easier to use git than svn, >>> especially for managing a big number of small patches and doing merges >>> (which I won't be able since I'll be moving only the systemd branch). >>> >>> Does anyone object on that? I know it would be a downside that a more or >>> less official project is being hosted somewhere else, but I don't recall >>> that LFS server hosts any git repositories, so github is my best bet. >>> >>> In case nobody objects, current editors can either send me their public >>> ssh key for commit access or send pull requests or git formatted patches >>> (the latter two apply for everyone else). >>> >> >> It's a lot easier to do pull requests and to track development via >> github than it is to do so from the current system. Also better >> branching allows for a wider set of experiments. I'd vote yes. >> > > We tried early this year to export the svn history to git but were > unsuccessful. I'm not ready to throw away that history. > > Since there are relatively few changes to LFS and only a small number of > committers, subversion works fine. > > For instance I'd be interested in switching the book over to markdown >> from docbook which I think would make it more accessible. >> > > We have 15 years of experience tweaking Docbook based files to do several > tasks. We do a lot more maintenance work behind the scenes with the XML > files than just render HTML. > > Since I've never heard of markdown, I don't see how it would make it more > accessible.
It's a ruby package. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
