On 07/01/2016 08:39 PM, FRIGN wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:49:34 -0700 > Ben Woolley <tauto...@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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
