Hi Thomas and Ben,
Excerpt from Ben Fritz: > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:14:00 AM UTC-5, Thomas Köhler wrote: >> >> OK, now things are clearer for me. That's basically a good idea, >> but: >> - URL would also need to change: >> >> http://gott-gehabt.de/800_wer_wir_sind/thomas/Homepage/Computer/vim/syntax/uil.vim >> would need to become something different, for example >> http://www.vim.org/runtimefiles/syntax/uil.vim >> - all the vim runtime file maintainers would need to have >> read/write access below http://www.vim.org/runtimefiles/ (or >> whereever that is) >> >> The reason is that if another maintainer changes a file, the file >> also should be changed at the URL given in the file. >> > > Yes, agreed. *grin* we are already discussion implementation details. Seems like everyone agrees this is a good way forward. Well in my experience each active vim maintainer is rather knowledgeable *and* friendly. I am sure if one tells an other: "Hey we need to change that url, too". That asked person will do what he is asked for. Same with a missing keyword, a suboptimal regex or what ever. If we communicate we each other we will find a solution or an other. But the situation that led to this thread was simply no communication, not even technically possible. As i said earlier there will be problems. Discuss them on list, think about them, fix them. >> Of course there could be a git repository with all runtime files >> included, > > Or, how about just a clone of the main Vim repository? Often runtime file > changes are related to changes in the Vim code. If we get going well enough > we might even convince Bram to pull runtime file changes directly. > > I think the "official" repository should be a Mercurial clone, because that's > what Vim's official repository is, but there are extensions to both Hg and > git which allow them to work on the other's repository or convert one to the > other losslessly. So there could be secondary clones all over in git or Hg if > desired. > >> and all maintainers just send patches to a group of git >> maintainers, and the URL would point to where the central git >> repository would show the file, which would put down the number >> of people that need read/write access from a few hundred to just >> a few. What do you think? >> > > I think I'd rather see it done with push/pull. If not everyone has push > access (I don't see why that shouldn't be the goal) each maintainer could > easily make their own clone and tell the main repo's maintainer(s) "please > pull revXXXXXX from my repository at YYYY". > > Periodically Bram could either pull from the runtime repository, or export > the latest as a patch against the last merged version from the official > repository. I thought about a repo, too. If we will have one i also prefer that it has an interface to mercurial (probably even must have). No matter what that $VCS (or %VCS% as some use here) will be. Hopefully a nice fall-out would be that Bram can spend more time on Vim directly rather then on runtimefiles. Lets see how that works out. -- Regards, Thilo 4096R/0xC70B1A8F 721B 1BA0 095C 1ABA 3FC6 7C18 89A4 A2A0 C70B 1A8F -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
