On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:35, Vincent van Ravesteijn <v...@lyx.org> wrote: >> > i would expect some support given that you are so hurry :) >> > this must work before we switch. >> > > > > Yes. > >> >> > up to know it was solved via commit hooks on lyx.org server. >> > i guess we could proceed with lyx.org again, but it would be >> > substantialy more work than gitorious. do you feel like working on it? >> > (maybe Lars can help?). >> >> I can. If I am to do anything with this I am more likely to go the >> gitolite way. >> >> Note: where the master repo is located and where developers keep their >> developmen/feature reps does not have to be the same place. > > > Lars, Are you willing to set up a git repo on our server ? Gitolite seems > interesting indeed. I will have a closer look on it.
I can look at it. Pity that the server uses debian, I am a lot less familiar with that. >> >> >> You really do not want to have all devvies pushing commits. >> Make a small cabal of people to do this instead. > > > This seems in general to be the policy, but I'm not sure I want to have too > many > restrictions. The idea was to let all devvies push into their own branches I don't think that is a good idea. Developers should have their own _repos_, at the server. (merging to the main repo will not be any harder because of that, but a lot of cruft can be kept out. (after all deveopers come and go)) > and > let them merge it into trunk-devel (which is a temporary branch). I will > then merge > it into trunk-stable. I must admit that I don't see the point in having two trunks. (I see a real danger in one being tested all the time, and the other almost not at all.) Sure several release branches might be ok, (even if I'd even then would prefere multiple repos) In all things git one really should look hard at the linux kernel development model and see what would fit and would would require modifcations. -- Lgb
