[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