[syslinux] git repo: primary/secondary/unofficial
Geert Stappers
stappers at stappers.nl
Sun Jun 14 13:33:12 PDT 2015
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:44:11PM +0300, Ady via Syslinux wrote:
>
> > I'm starting this thread to discuss what git repository should be
> > designated as primary and which repositories should be designated as
> > secondary.
> >
> > For years, git.kernel.org has been the primary repo, updated at least
> > with every full and pre- release. git.zytor.com has been the
> > secondary and development repo.
> >
> > Additionally, I've maintained my repos at github.com and git.zytor.com
> > as unofficial repos with the master branch on each following the
> > official repos which I expect to stay this way.
> >
> > --
> > -Gene
>
> I don't know about primary / secondary / unofficial, but I would like
> to mention some points for consideration.
>
> 1_ repo.or.cz currently uses a web interface similar to the
> gitweb-caching interface that was used in git.zytor.com until 2014Oct.
> This might not be very important for developers, but it might be
> relevant for others (myself included).
>
> 2_ repo.or.cz is already being used by NASM, and by some contributors.
>
> 3_ github.com has the possibility of "wiki" and "issues". This sounds
> as a potential advantage, but it might be a burden. There are not
> enough resources (time, developers, contributors...) to maintain yet
> another contact channel. Moreover, having multiple channels for the
> same objective (bugs, wiki, tracking patches, optionally "linking"
> between them...) is probably not such a good idea.
>
> 4_ The current bugzilla for Syslinux is not very well maintained.
> Should a different method / site be considered _instead_ of it? Should
> an _additional_ method / site be considered as optional alternative?
>
> 5_ github.com is popular. Would having a github repo attract additional
> valuable developers (with the adequate skills)? Or would it result in
> more maintenance than it would be worth?
Popular should not be a reason to choose.
> 6_ I would tend to think that the current 2 official repositories
> should be kept (in addition to whatever results from this discussion
> and efforts), not replaced.
>
> 7_ There are other prospects in existence.
>
> 8_ For any of the potential prospects, actions should be taken so "The
> Syslinux Project" could acquire official ownership / privileges /
> permissions.
>
> Regards,
> Ady.
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
Leven en laten leven
More information about the Syslinux
mailing list