Στις 30/5/2018 16:37, ο Massimo Manghi έγραψε:
Hi George
On 05/28/2018 10:52 AM, Georgios Petasis wrote:
Dear Massimo,
The advantages for me, even for a read-only mirror are:
1) It can be placed in github. This will add some small visibility. It
is just another place that can direct to apache rivet through its
readme.md file.
good point, but shouldn't it enable us to move on to github anyway,
without asking Apache to open a read-only repository?
2) Perhaps it would be easier for some to monitor, fork, do some fixes
and generate a pull request. (perhaps :-))
I would like also a bug tracking feature, but I see none of the mirrored
projects having the "Issues" tab.
Yes, we are a tiny project compared to other Apache projects, but I
think we should try... :-)
George
I'd like to have an insight into Rob Maris words. How different is
'forking' a repository from 'cloning' it, the usual way we do with git
or fossil?
-- Massimo
I don't know the exact details (as I have never done it, and perhaps I
will do this for the first time to update fossil in Fedora
repositories), but forking creates a copy of the repository that is
owned by the user that forked it.
It is still linked to the original repository (as commits made in the
original also show up in the fork), but the user can create new branches
in the fork, and modify and commit modifications.
When the user who forked the project is done with his/her changes, and
commit them, he/she can issue a pull request. Its up to the owners of
the original repo to revise and accept. In this case, the fork ends.
This is how I understand the process. And I think it is a quite
widespread pattern now.
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org
