On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:05:42 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote:
> I want to maintain a branch myself, (where I'm the only person pushing
> to the branch). [This is different than what I've done with the cairo
> repository where we have all core maintainer's pushing to a central
> repository. I'm intentionally trying something new here.]

Just my 2 cents here, but I fully support the idea of perusing a fully
distributed development model.  I have been using it on other projects I
work on and it works great.

> Obviously, that branch that I maintain is currently called "master", but
> I wouldn't mind (and might actually prefer) to have it be called
> "~cworth" or so. Though we have the problem that we need "master" to
> point to *something*.

There's really no need to do that.  For others developers, they would
just add your repo as a "remote", which would presumably be named
something like "cworth".  Then in the developers repo your master branch
would be named "cworth/master".

With a crew of developers, A, B, C, etc., each one would add the others
as remotes, and their branches would be visible under their remotes, ie:

C at host:~$ git branch -a

> Beyond that, I'm quite happy to have any number of branches similarly
> maintained by any other individuals. I want to get things setup so that
> those will be hosted and listed alongside my branch on
> notmuchmail.org. And I'll be happy to accept pull requests from
> people. I expect to find people naturally gravitating to "ownership" or
> particular portions of the code, where I will gain a lot of trust for
> particular maintainers over the code they own.

I think this is the right idea.

I think the problem we've been having recently is that we have bit of a
patch backlog due to circumstances of Carl's travel.  This is an issue
because the project is new and people are eager to see their
contributions in place.  I'm sure Carl will get to them as fast as he
can.  Once the project becomes more mature and other developers are
vetting patches, then their branches can take over as "master" in the
absence of an outdated canonical master.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available

Reply via email to