On 07/01/2016 08:39 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:49:34 -0700
> Ben Woolley <tautolog_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Remember, git was originally created to solve the problem of concurrently
>> managing many large patch sets from distributed sources. Isn't that the
>> problem here?
>
> it's always the same thing here. People propose things that are very
> complex solutions for simple problems, and they end up being accepted
> due to negligience. However, only a few people actually maintain the
> patches in the long run, which is a shame.
>
> The dwm patch section just needs an overhaul analogous to the st
> patch section had. End of story.
>
> It's already difficult enough getting people to maintain their
> patches now, let alone in some git environment.
Actually, I'd think if you give people push access to their patch branch
it may be easier for them than having to export a patch and update the
wiki: they already rebase the patches for themselves, they would just
have to git push and that would be done.
This idea of setup does not take into account the cost for maintenance
of a setup where selected people are allowed to push to selected
branches, as I have not (yet) inquired more into that.
This idea does not take into account the keeping alive of old patches
either; which may be implemented by auto-generating a tag when a branch
is force-pushed, but requires even more setup from the suckless server
admins. A simpler solution would be to disable force-pushes, but this
would mean mergeing all the time and an unclean history for patches.
This idea only takes into account the price for the patch-submitting
end-user.
Cheers,
ekleog
Received on Sat Jul 02 2016 - 06:05:09 CEST