On 6/2/11 1:00 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote at 17:25 (EDT) on Wednesday:
>> I think this is a great idea. I've already contacted Bradley and
>> encouraged him to go ahead. I'd like to thank him publicly for his
>> offer.
>
> Thanks, Chet! It was my pleasure to set this up. Thanks to Jari for
> the original idea and the first attempt, which is what inspired me.
>
> I did get your email about setting me up on savannah. I typically only
> have time to work on this on the weekends, so I'll investigate this
> weekend how to replace the repository on savannah with the new one.
Yes, I'm familiar with those constraints. :-)
> In the meantime, I know there are some developers who are using git
> themselves to track their development of patches for Bash. Chet, would
> you have any objection to using the new repository for that effort?
I'd encourage it. It should go both ways, too. There are times that I
post preliminary patches that solve a particular problem to bug-bash
and solicit feedback. They may be released as official patches, or may
wait until the next version, but they solve or attempt to solve a
specific reported problem. It would be helpful to have those patches
in this repository as well.
> I'd suggest that we keep the master branch only to track the history of
> releases and officially released patches as Chet posts them, and then we
> can use separate branches for individual developers who want to use Git.
> What do you think of this idea?
I think there should be a master branch, and a branch that includes posted
patches other than those that have been "officially released." Then other
branches as needed to accommodate developers.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
