[syslinux] git repo: primary/secondary/unofficial

Gene Cumm gene.cumm at gmail.com
Mon Jun 15 06:41:13 PDT 2015


On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Geert Stappers via Syslinux
<syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:
> 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.

This is the reason I'd consider this the best candidate as the new primary.

>> 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.

The github.com issues should only be considered as a replacement to
the existing bugzilla, not as an additional means of tracking issues.

>> 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?

Qualify "not very well maintained".  Is it just the overall attention
towards issues that varies by everyone's availability?  If so, I think
you might mean to use other words.

>> 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.

Agreed.

>> 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.

At the moment, my thoughts are simple:

1) Add at _least_ one more official pushable repo.  I'd consider
adding repo.or.cz, github.com and gitlab.com (gitorious.org is being
acquired by gitlab.com and being shutdown) as official repos.  Adding
permissions to any of these should be relatively easy.

2) Change the primary repo from git.kernel.org.  Depending on hpa's
thoughts on the matter, I'd lean towards not using git.zytor.com as
the primary either.  repo.or.cz is probably the best candidate.

-- 
-Gene


More information about the Syslinux mailing list