Ekaitz Zarraga <eka...@elenq.tech> writes:
On 2025-03-04 12:22, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
- The flow would be*even* more confusing than now, since
it'd look
like Github but require committers to use it very
differently.
This is a very interesting take.
I have a similar view when we mention A-Git-Flow or whatever
that is.
We would be using a tool in a very surprising way. I don't know
if
that's good, at all.
We would be pushing that complexity only to committers, not to
ocasional contributors, which may help attracting people. But,
on the
other hand, we would force people who is already very busy (and
very
efficient with their current workflow) to discard their way to
do
things and learn another.
The Github workflow is more complicated:
- fork the repository on the forge website
- clone your fork from the forge to your local machine
- checkout a new branch
- make a commit
- push the commit from your local checkout to your fork on the
forge
- go to the forge website to open a pull request from your fork to
the upstream repository
The AGit flow:
- clone the upstream repository
- checkout a new branch
- make a commit
- push the commit as a PR to the forge.
Am I overlooking something?
--
Ricardo
