Robert Norris <rw_nor...@hotmail.com> writes: >> It looks like Rob is now working directly in the SF repo. > > Since I have commit privileges, 'simple' fixes / small changes get > applied directly to the SF repo. > This is a maintainer thing as they don't necessarily need any feedback > before being applied.
That's totally fine - I didn't mean to be critical of it. I was just trying to figure out which repo to follow. >> I'd like to see a HACKING.git in the official repo that lists all the >> URLs of actively-maintained versions. Sort of like a list of forks, >> but without buying ito any repo service as the one true way. >> >> So, can people explain what counts these days? > > I don't think this needs to be in the source, perhaps in the Wiki - > contribute' part. It's vastly more important to be somewhere, of course, and that seems fine. Even after logging in to sourceforge (I am 'lexort'), there's no edit tab. My preference for being in the source comes from 1) me being from the pre-wiki generation and 2) it follows git's notion of distributed version control and local operations - so having a clone means you have all the data. >> Also, do the maintainer prefer mail with format-patch, or a public repo? >> (With my maintainer hat on for other projects, I want people to publish >> a repo that I can remote add and inspect and maybe merge from.) > > Format patch is fine for single commits, as I think it's easy enough > for the maintainer and potentially easier for a contributer (as they > don't need a public repo). > Most changes have come through patches / diffs. > > However for more complicated changes requiring a series of commits > then definitely a public repo is best so the code can be reviewed more > easily. That sounds fine - it would be good to explain in HACKING or in a wiki page pointed to by HACKING. I fixed whitespace in README and HACKING: https://github.com/gdt/viking/commits/whitespace-README >> I'd be happy to make a README.git and format-patch/send a commit. > > OK, but again I think this meta-data about the code would be better > served by being in the Wiki. I'd like to see at least a pointer in HACKING in the source to the wiki information. Right now sf is the main place, but it seems when projects move away from sf then the stale information remains. It might also be nice to nuke or update the various other git repositories. I've pushed things from sf to my github fork (of your github repo). I have git master building on NetBSD/i386 5.1 (without gpsd at the moment), with one minor issue about NetBSD's (wrong) definition of floating point constants. Now on to doing something useful.
pgpAY03YwDfLa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
_______________________________________________ Viking-devel mailing list Viking-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viking-devel Viking home page: http://viking.sf.net/
